Emergency Medicine

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

A former nursing assistant and Army veteran pleaded guilty to federal murder charges this week in connection with the 2017-2018 deaths of seven patients in a West Virginia veteran’s hospital, according to news reports.

Prosecutors said in court documents filed on July 13 that Reta Mays, 46, injected lethal doses of insulin into seven veterans at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center (VAMC) in rural Clarksburg, W.Va.

Their blood glucose levels plummeted, and each died shortly after their injections, according to the Tennessean.

An eighth patient, a 92-year-old man whom Mays is accused of assaulting with an insulin injection, initially survived after staff were able to stabilize him but died 2 weeks later at a nursing home, NPR reports.

According to NPR, US Attorney Jarod Douglas told the court Tuesday that the medical investigator could not determine whether the insulin contributed to the man’s death but that it was Mays’ intention to kill him.

“No one watched while she injected them with lethal doses of insulin during an 11-month killing rampage,” the Washington Post reported.
 

No motive offered

The Post article said no motive has been established, but after a 2-year investigation into a pattern of suspicious deaths that took the hospital almost a year to detect, Mays, who had denied any wrongdoing in multiple interviews with investigators, told a federal judge she preyed on some of the country›s most vulnerable service members.

An attorney for Mays, Brian Kornbrath, contacted by Medscape Medical News, said: “The defense team decided that we would have no public comment at this time.”

According to court documents from the Northern District of West Virginia, Mays was charged with seven counts of second-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder in connection with the patient who died later.

Mays was hired at the VAMC in Clarksburg in June 2015. She worked from 7:30 PM to 8:00 AM in the medical surgical unit, court documents say.

According to the documents, “VAMC Clarksburg did not require a nursing assistant to have a certification or licensure for initial appointment or as a condition of continuing employment.”

The documents indicate that in June 2018, a hospitalist employed by VAMC Clarksburg reported concern about several deaths from unexplained hypoglycemic events in the same ward and noted that many of the affected patients did not have diabetes.

By that time, according to the Tennessean, “at least eight patients had died under suspicious circumstances. Several had been embalmed and buried, destroying potential evidence. One veteran had been cremated.”

An internal investigation began, followed by a criminal investigation, and in July 2018, Mays was removed from patient care.
 

Mays fired in 2019 because of lies on resume; claims suffers from PTSD

The Post reports that Mays was fired from the hospital in 2019, 7 months after she was banned from patient care, «after it was discovered she had lied about her qualifications on her resume.»

Court documents indicate that her duties included acting as a sitter for patients, checking vital signs, intake and output, and testing blood glucose levels, but she was not qualified to administer medications, including insulin.

Similarities in the deaths were evident, the Post reported. Citing sources familiar with the case, the report said, “elderly patients in private rooms were injected in their abdomen and limbs with insulin the hospital had not ordered.”

The Post reported that Mays sobbed by the end of the hearing on Tuesday.

The article notes that Mays has three sons and served in the Army National Guard from November 2000 to April 2001 and again from February 2003 to May 2004, when she was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait. She told the judge she was taking medication for posttraumatic stress disorder.

By pleading guilty, she waived her right to have the case presented to a grand jury. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled, the Post reports.

NPR notes that prosecutors have requested that Mays serve seven consecutive life sentences and an additional 20 years in prison.
 

“Our hearts go out to those affected by these tragic deaths”

A spokesman for VAMC Clarksburg said in a statement to Medscape Medical News: “Our hearts go out to those affected by these tragic deaths. Clarksburg VA Medical Center discovered these allegations and reported them to VA›s independent inspector general more than 2 years ago. Clarksburg VA Medical Center also fired the individual at the center of the allegations.

“We’re glad the Department of Justice stepped in to push this investigation across the finish line and hopeful our court system will deliver the justice Clarksburg-area Veterans and families deserve.”

According to the Tennessean, Michael Missal, inspector general for the Department of Veteran Affairs, said the agency is investigating the hospital’s practices, “including medication management and communications among staffers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A former nursing assistant and Army veteran pleaded guilty to federal murder charges this week in connection with the 2017-2018 deaths of seven patients in a West Virginia veteran’s hospital, according to news reports.

Prosecutors said in court documents filed on July 13 that Reta Mays, 46, injected lethal doses of insulin into seven veterans at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center (VAMC) in rural Clarksburg, W.Va.

Their blood glucose levels plummeted, and each died shortly after their injections, according to the Tennessean.

An eighth patient, a 92-year-old man whom Mays is accused of assaulting with an insulin injection, initially survived after staff were able to stabilize him but died 2 weeks later at a nursing home, NPR reports.

According to NPR, US Attorney Jarod Douglas told the court Tuesday that the medical investigator could not determine whether the insulin contributed to the man’s death but that it was Mays’ intention to kill him.

“No one watched while she injected them with lethal doses of insulin during an 11-month killing rampage,” the Washington Post reported.
 

No motive offered

The Post article said no motive has been established, but after a 2-year investigation into a pattern of suspicious deaths that took the hospital almost a year to detect, Mays, who had denied any wrongdoing in multiple interviews with investigators, told a federal judge she preyed on some of the country›s most vulnerable service members.

An attorney for Mays, Brian Kornbrath, contacted by Medscape Medical News, said: “The defense team decided that we would have no public comment at this time.”

According to court documents from the Northern District of West Virginia, Mays was charged with seven counts of second-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder in connection with the patient who died later.

Mays was hired at the VAMC in Clarksburg in June 2015. She worked from 7:30 PM to 8:00 AM in the medical surgical unit, court documents say.

According to the documents, “VAMC Clarksburg did not require a nursing assistant to have a certification or licensure for initial appointment or as a condition of continuing employment.”

The documents indicate that in June 2018, a hospitalist employed by VAMC Clarksburg reported concern about several deaths from unexplained hypoglycemic events in the same ward and noted that many of the affected patients did not have diabetes.

By that time, according to the Tennessean, “at least eight patients had died under suspicious circumstances. Several had been embalmed and buried, destroying potential evidence. One veteran had been cremated.”

An internal investigation began, followed by a criminal investigation, and in July 2018, Mays was removed from patient care.
 

Mays fired in 2019 because of lies on resume; claims suffers from PTSD

The Post reports that Mays was fired from the hospital in 2019, 7 months after she was banned from patient care, «after it was discovered she had lied about her qualifications on her resume.»

Court documents indicate that her duties included acting as a sitter for patients, checking vital signs, intake and output, and testing blood glucose levels, but she was not qualified to administer medications, including insulin.

Similarities in the deaths were evident, the Post reported. Citing sources familiar with the case, the report said, “elderly patients in private rooms were injected in their abdomen and limbs with insulin the hospital had not ordered.”

The Post reported that Mays sobbed by the end of the hearing on Tuesday.

The article notes that Mays has three sons and served in the Army National Guard from November 2000 to April 2001 and again from February 2003 to May 2004, when she was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait. She told the judge she was taking medication for posttraumatic stress disorder.

By pleading guilty, she waived her right to have the case presented to a grand jury. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled, the Post reports.

NPR notes that prosecutors have requested that Mays serve seven consecutive life sentences and an additional 20 years in prison.
 

“Our hearts go out to those affected by these tragic deaths”

A spokesman for VAMC Clarksburg said in a statement to Medscape Medical News: “Our hearts go out to those affected by these tragic deaths. Clarksburg VA Medical Center discovered these allegations and reported them to VA›s independent inspector general more than 2 years ago. Clarksburg VA Medical Center also fired the individual at the center of the allegations.

“We’re glad the Department of Justice stepped in to push this investigation across the finish line and hopeful our court system will deliver the justice Clarksburg-area Veterans and families deserve.”

According to the Tennessean, Michael Missal, inspector general for the Department of Veteran Affairs, said the agency is investigating the hospital’s practices, “including medication management and communications among staffers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A former nursing assistant and Army veteran pleaded guilty to federal murder charges this week in connection with the 2017-2018 deaths of seven patients in a West Virginia veteran’s hospital, according to news reports.

Prosecutors said in court documents filed on July 13 that Reta Mays, 46, injected lethal doses of insulin into seven veterans at the Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center (VAMC) in rural Clarksburg, W.Va.

Their blood glucose levels plummeted, and each died shortly after their injections, according to the Tennessean.

An eighth patient, a 92-year-old man whom Mays is accused of assaulting with an insulin injection, initially survived after staff were able to stabilize him but died 2 weeks later at a nursing home, NPR reports.

According to NPR, US Attorney Jarod Douglas told the court Tuesday that the medical investigator could not determine whether the insulin contributed to the man’s death but that it was Mays’ intention to kill him.

“No one watched while she injected them with lethal doses of insulin during an 11-month killing rampage,” the Washington Post reported.
 

No motive offered

The Post article said no motive has been established, but after a 2-year investigation into a pattern of suspicious deaths that took the hospital almost a year to detect, Mays, who had denied any wrongdoing in multiple interviews with investigators, told a federal judge she preyed on some of the country›s most vulnerable service members.

An attorney for Mays, Brian Kornbrath, contacted by Medscape Medical News, said: “The defense team decided that we would have no public comment at this time.”

According to court documents from the Northern District of West Virginia, Mays was charged with seven counts of second-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder in connection with the patient who died later.

Mays was hired at the VAMC in Clarksburg in June 2015. She worked from 7:30 PM to 8:00 AM in the medical surgical unit, court documents say.

According to the documents, “VAMC Clarksburg did not require a nursing assistant to have a certification or licensure for initial appointment or as a condition of continuing employment.”

The documents indicate that in June 2018, a hospitalist employed by VAMC Clarksburg reported concern about several deaths from unexplained hypoglycemic events in the same ward and noted that many of the affected patients did not have diabetes.

By that time, according to the Tennessean, “at least eight patients had died under suspicious circumstances. Several had been embalmed and buried, destroying potential evidence. One veteran had been cremated.”

An internal investigation began, followed by a criminal investigation, and in July 2018, Mays was removed from patient care.
 

Mays fired in 2019 because of lies on resume; claims suffers from PTSD

The Post reports that Mays was fired from the hospital in 2019, 7 months after she was banned from patient care, «after it was discovered she had lied about her qualifications on her resume.»

Court documents indicate that her duties included acting as a sitter for patients, checking vital signs, intake and output, and testing blood glucose levels, but she was not qualified to administer medications, including insulin.

Similarities in the deaths were evident, the Post reported. Citing sources familiar with the case, the report said, “elderly patients in private rooms were injected in their abdomen and limbs with insulin the hospital had not ordered.”

The Post reported that Mays sobbed by the end of the hearing on Tuesday.

The article notes that Mays has three sons and served in the Army National Guard from November 2000 to April 2001 and again from February 2003 to May 2004, when she was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait. She told the judge she was taking medication for posttraumatic stress disorder.

By pleading guilty, she waived her right to have the case presented to a grand jury. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled, the Post reports.

NPR notes that prosecutors have requested that Mays serve seven consecutive life sentences and an additional 20 years in prison.
 

“Our hearts go out to those affected by these tragic deaths”

A spokesman for VAMC Clarksburg said in a statement to Medscape Medical News: “Our hearts go out to those affected by these tragic deaths. Clarksburg VA Medical Center discovered these allegations and reported them to VA›s independent inspector general more than 2 years ago. Clarksburg VA Medical Center also fired the individual at the center of the allegations.

“We’re glad the Department of Justice stepped in to push this investigation across the finish line and hopeful our court system will deliver the justice Clarksburg-area Veterans and families deserve.”

According to the Tennessean, Michael Missal, inspector general for the Department of Veteran Affairs, said the agency is investigating the hospital’s practices, “including medication management and communications among staffers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with later bleeding complications that were at least moderate in severity showed a 15-fold increased risk of dying within 30 days, compared with those without such bleeding, in a pooled analysis of four randomized antithrombotic-therapy trials.

Mortality 1 month to 1 year after a bleeding event was not as sharply increased, but there was still almost triple the risk seen in patients without bleeding complications.

In both cases, the risk increase was independent of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had been part of the management of ACS, concludes the study, published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We showed that postdischarge bleeding was associated with a pretty bad prognosis, in terms of all-cause mortality, regardless of the index treatment – PCI or medical therapy,” lead author Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, MSc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that we should care about bleeding prevention in patients who had a previous ACS, regardless of the treatment strategy, as much as we care for prevention of future ischemic events,” said Dr. Marquis-Gravel, who is also an interventional cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute.

“This large-scale analysis clearly demonstrates that bleeding events occurring among ACS patients with coronary stents carry the same prognostic significance in magnitude and time course as among patients who do not undergo PCI,” observed Derek Chew, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and Jack Wei Chieh Tan, MBBS, MBA, of National Heart Centre, Singapore, in an accompanying editorial.

“Therefore, at least in the later phases of planning antithrombotic therapy, when weighting bleeding risk in these conditions, these estimates should not be ‘discounted’ for the absence or presence of PCI during the initial ACS management,” they wrote.
 

A “proven assumption”

“A great deal of research has previously been conducted to tailor DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] and to minimize bleeding risk following PCI based on the proven assumption that bleeding is associated with adverse clinical outcomes,” Dr. Marques-Gravel explained.

“The prognostic impact of postdischarge bleeding has not been studied thoroughly in patients with ACS who were only treated medically with DAPT without PCI.” Yet this population makes up a large proportion of the ACS population, and patients are “generally older and sicker” and therefore at increased risk for both ischemic and bleeding events, he said.

The researchers explored those issues in a post hoc pooled analysis of four randomized comparisons of antithrombotic strategies in patients with ACS: APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS. The analyses tracked bleeding events that took place from a landmark time of 7 days after presentation with ACS over a median follow-up of 1 year in 45,011 patients (31.3% female), 48% of whom were managed with PCI.

Those treated with PCI, compared with those medically managed only, tended to be younger, more often male, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as their ACS, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities.

During the total follow-up of 48,717 person-years, the postdischarge rate of moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding defined by GUSTO criteria reached 2.6 events per 100 patient-years. A total of 2,149 patients died, and mortality was consistently higher in patients who had such bleeding complications. They showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 15.7 (95% confidence interval, 12.3-20.0) for mortality within 30 days, compared with patients without bleeds. Their HR for mortality at 30 days to 1 year was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.4).

The association between bleeding complications and mortality remained consistent, regardless of whether patients had undergone PCI for their ACS (interaction P = .240).
 

A pragmatic interpretation

Although an observational study can’t show causality between bleeding and mortality, Dr. Marquis-Gravel cautioned, “the fact that the majority of deaths occurred early after the bleeding event, within 30 days, is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

He recommended a “pragmatic interpretation” of the study: “Bleeding avoidance strategies tested in PCI populations, including short-term DAPT or aspirin-free strategies, should also be considered in medically treated patients with ACS deemed at higher risk of bleeding.”

“It is clear that bleeding events after successful PCI for an ACS are independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity,” Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, of Texas Tech University, El Paso, said in an interview.

“Every effort should be made to minimize bleeding events with the use of appropriate access site for PCI, dosing, selection, and duration of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents, and use of proton pump inhibitors when appropriate,” he said.

The clinical decision-making involved in this individualized approach “is often not easy,” said Dr. Mukherjee, who was not involved in the current study. “Integrating patients and clinical pharmacists in choosing optimal antithrombotic therapies post-MI is likely to be helpful” in the process.

Although “major bleeding following ACS increases the risk of mortality for both medically managed and PCI-managed patients with ACS, the vast majority of deaths, 90%, occur in those that have not had a bleed,” Mamas A. Mamas, DPhil, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said in an interview.

“It is important to understand the causes of death in this population and think about how interventions may impact on this,” agreed Dr. Mamas, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Marquis-Gravel reported receiving speaking fees and honoraria from Servier and Novartis; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Chew reported receiving speaking fees and institutional grants in aid from Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Tan discloses receiving speaking fees and educational grants from Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Mamas report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with later bleeding complications that were at least moderate in severity showed a 15-fold increased risk of dying within 30 days, compared with those without such bleeding, in a pooled analysis of four randomized antithrombotic-therapy trials.

Mortality 1 month to 1 year after a bleeding event was not as sharply increased, but there was still almost triple the risk seen in patients without bleeding complications.

In both cases, the risk increase was independent of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had been part of the management of ACS, concludes the study, published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We showed that postdischarge bleeding was associated with a pretty bad prognosis, in terms of all-cause mortality, regardless of the index treatment – PCI or medical therapy,” lead author Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, MSc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that we should care about bleeding prevention in patients who had a previous ACS, regardless of the treatment strategy, as much as we care for prevention of future ischemic events,” said Dr. Marquis-Gravel, who is also an interventional cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute.

“This large-scale analysis clearly demonstrates that bleeding events occurring among ACS patients with coronary stents carry the same prognostic significance in magnitude and time course as among patients who do not undergo PCI,” observed Derek Chew, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and Jack Wei Chieh Tan, MBBS, MBA, of National Heart Centre, Singapore, in an accompanying editorial.

“Therefore, at least in the later phases of planning antithrombotic therapy, when weighting bleeding risk in these conditions, these estimates should not be ‘discounted’ for the absence or presence of PCI during the initial ACS management,” they wrote.
 

A “proven assumption”

“A great deal of research has previously been conducted to tailor DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] and to minimize bleeding risk following PCI based on the proven assumption that bleeding is associated with adverse clinical outcomes,” Dr. Marques-Gravel explained.

“The prognostic impact of postdischarge bleeding has not been studied thoroughly in patients with ACS who were only treated medically with DAPT without PCI.” Yet this population makes up a large proportion of the ACS population, and patients are “generally older and sicker” and therefore at increased risk for both ischemic and bleeding events, he said.

The researchers explored those issues in a post hoc pooled analysis of four randomized comparisons of antithrombotic strategies in patients with ACS: APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS. The analyses tracked bleeding events that took place from a landmark time of 7 days after presentation with ACS over a median follow-up of 1 year in 45,011 patients (31.3% female), 48% of whom were managed with PCI.

Those treated with PCI, compared with those medically managed only, tended to be younger, more often male, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as their ACS, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities.

During the total follow-up of 48,717 person-years, the postdischarge rate of moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding defined by GUSTO criteria reached 2.6 events per 100 patient-years. A total of 2,149 patients died, and mortality was consistently higher in patients who had such bleeding complications. They showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 15.7 (95% confidence interval, 12.3-20.0) for mortality within 30 days, compared with patients without bleeds. Their HR for mortality at 30 days to 1 year was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.4).

The association between bleeding complications and mortality remained consistent, regardless of whether patients had undergone PCI for their ACS (interaction P = .240).
 

A pragmatic interpretation

Although an observational study can’t show causality between bleeding and mortality, Dr. Marquis-Gravel cautioned, “the fact that the majority of deaths occurred early after the bleeding event, within 30 days, is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

He recommended a “pragmatic interpretation” of the study: “Bleeding avoidance strategies tested in PCI populations, including short-term DAPT or aspirin-free strategies, should also be considered in medically treated patients with ACS deemed at higher risk of bleeding.”

“It is clear that bleeding events after successful PCI for an ACS are independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity,” Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, of Texas Tech University, El Paso, said in an interview.

“Every effort should be made to minimize bleeding events with the use of appropriate access site for PCI, dosing, selection, and duration of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents, and use of proton pump inhibitors when appropriate,” he said.

The clinical decision-making involved in this individualized approach “is often not easy,” said Dr. Mukherjee, who was not involved in the current study. “Integrating patients and clinical pharmacists in choosing optimal antithrombotic therapies post-MI is likely to be helpful” in the process.

Although “major bleeding following ACS increases the risk of mortality for both medically managed and PCI-managed patients with ACS, the vast majority of deaths, 90%, occur in those that have not had a bleed,” Mamas A. Mamas, DPhil, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said in an interview.

“It is important to understand the causes of death in this population and think about how interventions may impact on this,” agreed Dr. Mamas, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Marquis-Gravel reported receiving speaking fees and honoraria from Servier and Novartis; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Chew reported receiving speaking fees and institutional grants in aid from Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Tan discloses receiving speaking fees and educational grants from Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Mamas report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with later bleeding complications that were at least moderate in severity showed a 15-fold increased risk of dying within 30 days, compared with those without such bleeding, in a pooled analysis of four randomized antithrombotic-therapy trials.

Mortality 1 month to 1 year after a bleeding event was not as sharply increased, but there was still almost triple the risk seen in patients without bleeding complications.

In both cases, the risk increase was independent of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had been part of the management of ACS, concludes the study, published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We showed that postdischarge bleeding was associated with a pretty bad prognosis, in terms of all-cause mortality, regardless of the index treatment – PCI or medical therapy,” lead author Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, MSc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that we should care about bleeding prevention in patients who had a previous ACS, regardless of the treatment strategy, as much as we care for prevention of future ischemic events,” said Dr. Marquis-Gravel, who is also an interventional cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute.

“This large-scale analysis clearly demonstrates that bleeding events occurring among ACS patients with coronary stents carry the same prognostic significance in magnitude and time course as among patients who do not undergo PCI,” observed Derek Chew, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and Jack Wei Chieh Tan, MBBS, MBA, of National Heart Centre, Singapore, in an accompanying editorial.

“Therefore, at least in the later phases of planning antithrombotic therapy, when weighting bleeding risk in these conditions, these estimates should not be ‘discounted’ for the absence or presence of PCI during the initial ACS management,” they wrote.
 

A “proven assumption”

“A great deal of research has previously been conducted to tailor DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] and to minimize bleeding risk following PCI based on the proven assumption that bleeding is associated with adverse clinical outcomes,” Dr. Marques-Gravel explained.

“The prognostic impact of postdischarge bleeding has not been studied thoroughly in patients with ACS who were only treated medically with DAPT without PCI.” Yet this population makes up a large proportion of the ACS population, and patients are “generally older and sicker” and therefore at increased risk for both ischemic and bleeding events, he said.

The researchers explored those issues in a post hoc pooled analysis of four randomized comparisons of antithrombotic strategies in patients with ACS: APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS. The analyses tracked bleeding events that took place from a landmark time of 7 days after presentation with ACS over a median follow-up of 1 year in 45,011 patients (31.3% female), 48% of whom were managed with PCI.

Those treated with PCI, compared with those medically managed only, tended to be younger, more often male, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as their ACS, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities.

During the total follow-up of 48,717 person-years, the postdischarge rate of moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding defined by GUSTO criteria reached 2.6 events per 100 patient-years. A total of 2,149 patients died, and mortality was consistently higher in patients who had such bleeding complications. They showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 15.7 (95% confidence interval, 12.3-20.0) for mortality within 30 days, compared with patients without bleeds. Their HR for mortality at 30 days to 1 year was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.4).

The association between bleeding complications and mortality remained consistent, regardless of whether patients had undergone PCI for their ACS (interaction P = .240).
 

A pragmatic interpretation

Although an observational study can’t show causality between bleeding and mortality, Dr. Marquis-Gravel cautioned, “the fact that the majority of deaths occurred early after the bleeding event, within 30 days, is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

He recommended a “pragmatic interpretation” of the study: “Bleeding avoidance strategies tested in PCI populations, including short-term DAPT or aspirin-free strategies, should also be considered in medically treated patients with ACS deemed at higher risk of bleeding.”

“It is clear that bleeding events after successful PCI for an ACS are independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity,” Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, of Texas Tech University, El Paso, said in an interview.

“Every effort should be made to minimize bleeding events with the use of appropriate access site for PCI, dosing, selection, and duration of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents, and use of proton pump inhibitors when appropriate,” he said.

The clinical decision-making involved in this individualized approach “is often not easy,” said Dr. Mukherjee, who was not involved in the current study. “Integrating patients and clinical pharmacists in choosing optimal antithrombotic therapies post-MI is likely to be helpful” in the process.

Although “major bleeding following ACS increases the risk of mortality for both medically managed and PCI-managed patients with ACS, the vast majority of deaths, 90%, occur in those that have not had a bleed,” Mamas A. Mamas, DPhil, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said in an interview.

“It is important to understand the causes of death in this population and think about how interventions may impact on this,” agreed Dr. Mamas, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Marquis-Gravel reported receiving speaking fees and honoraria from Servier and Novartis; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Chew reported receiving speaking fees and institutional grants in aid from Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Tan discloses receiving speaking fees and educational grants from Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Mamas report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Swapping out intravenous fentanyl in favor of IV acetaminophen in patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) provides comparable pain relief but with desirably higher blood levels of ticagrelor both immediately after primary percutaneous intervention and 1 hour post procedure.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

That’s according to results of the Dutch ON-TIME 3 trial, presented by Anne H. Tavenier, MD, at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“Our trial results have implications for the prehospital treatment of STEMI patients,” said Dr. Tavenier, a cardiologist at the Isala Clinic in Zwolle, the Netherlands.

The explanation for the success of this novel STEMI pain management strategy? The synthetic opioid fentanyl impairs gastrointestinal absorption of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as ticagrelor. Opiates do so as well, whereas acetaminophen does not, she explained.

The potent platelet inhibition provided by oral P2Y12 inhibitors is crucial to successful primary PCI for STEMI. But these platelet inhibitory effects are inherently slowed in STEMI patients owing to hemodynamic changes and delayed GI absorption. And even though both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend the use of opioids for pain control in STEMI patients, the fact is that these medications further delay the absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. And this delay is further exacerbated by the nausea and vomiting which are common side effects of IV fentanyl, she continued.

The impetus for the ON-TIME 3 trial was straightforward, the cardiologist said: “For years, STEMI patients have been treated with morphine or morphinelike drugs like fentanyl because of pain or sympathetic stress. To date, trials investigating alternative analgesics to opioids have been scarce.”

ON-TIME 3 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial in which 195 STEMI patients with a self-reported pain score of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale received crushed ticagrelor in the ambulance along with either 1,000 mg of IV acetaminophen or fentanyl at 1-2 mcg/kg.

Ticagrelor blood levels were significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group when measured just prior to primary PCI (151 ng/mL versus 60 ng/mL in the IV fentanyl group; immediately after PCI (326 versus 115 ng/mL), and 1 hour post PCI (488 versus 372 ng/mL).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in levels of platelet reactivity units measured immediately after primary PCI, Dr. Tavenier added.

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, confessed that prior to ON-TIME 3 he was unaware that administering opioids to STEMI patients results in delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Upon delving into the literature, however, he found that this is indeed a well-documented problem.

“The open question I have about this very elegant trial is whether the increased P2Y12 levels will translate into a measurable difference in clinical outcomes,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

The answer to that question would require a larger, longer-term trial. And he’s disinclined to wait around for that to happen.

“I think when we look at the risk balance, the risk of switching from an opioid to acetaminophen, if it works for the patient, is rather low. So this might be something to introduce in my practice,” the cardiologist said.

Dr. Tavenier and Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tavenier AH. EuroPCR 2020.

Swapping out intravenous fentanyl in favor of IV acetaminophen in patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) provides comparable pain relief but with desirably higher blood levels of ticagrelor both immediately after primary percutaneous intervention and 1 hour post procedure.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

That’s according to results of the Dutch ON-TIME 3 trial, presented by Anne H. Tavenier, MD, at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“Our trial results have implications for the prehospital treatment of STEMI patients,” said Dr. Tavenier, a cardiologist at the Isala Clinic in Zwolle, the Netherlands.

The explanation for the success of this novel STEMI pain management strategy? The synthetic opioid fentanyl impairs gastrointestinal absorption of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as ticagrelor. Opiates do so as well, whereas acetaminophen does not, she explained.

The potent platelet inhibition provided by oral P2Y12 inhibitors is crucial to successful primary PCI for STEMI. But these platelet inhibitory effects are inherently slowed in STEMI patients owing to hemodynamic changes and delayed GI absorption. And even though both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend the use of opioids for pain control in STEMI patients, the fact is that these medications further delay the absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. And this delay is further exacerbated by the nausea and vomiting which are common side effects of IV fentanyl, she continued.

The impetus for the ON-TIME 3 trial was straightforward, the cardiologist said: “For years, STEMI patients have been treated with morphine or morphinelike drugs like fentanyl because of pain or sympathetic stress. To date, trials investigating alternative analgesics to opioids have been scarce.”

ON-TIME 3 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial in which 195 STEMI patients with a self-reported pain score of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale received crushed ticagrelor in the ambulance along with either 1,000 mg of IV acetaminophen or fentanyl at 1-2 mcg/kg.

Ticagrelor blood levels were significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group when measured just prior to primary PCI (151 ng/mL versus 60 ng/mL in the IV fentanyl group; immediately after PCI (326 versus 115 ng/mL), and 1 hour post PCI (488 versus 372 ng/mL).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in levels of platelet reactivity units measured immediately after primary PCI, Dr. Tavenier added.

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, confessed that prior to ON-TIME 3 he was unaware that administering opioids to STEMI patients results in delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Upon delving into the literature, however, he found that this is indeed a well-documented problem.

“The open question I have about this very elegant trial is whether the increased P2Y12 levels will translate into a measurable difference in clinical outcomes,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

The answer to that question would require a larger, longer-term trial. And he’s disinclined to wait around for that to happen.

“I think when we look at the risk balance, the risk of switching from an opioid to acetaminophen, if it works for the patient, is rather low. So this might be something to introduce in my practice,” the cardiologist said.

Dr. Tavenier and Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tavenier AH. EuroPCR 2020.

Swapping out intravenous fentanyl in favor of IV acetaminophen in patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) provides comparable pain relief but with desirably higher blood levels of ticagrelor both immediately after primary percutaneous intervention and 1 hour post procedure.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

That’s according to results of the Dutch ON-TIME 3 trial, presented by Anne H. Tavenier, MD, at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“Our trial results have implications for the prehospital treatment of STEMI patients,” said Dr. Tavenier, a cardiologist at the Isala Clinic in Zwolle, the Netherlands.

The explanation for the success of this novel STEMI pain management strategy? The synthetic opioid fentanyl impairs gastrointestinal absorption of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as ticagrelor. Opiates do so as well, whereas acetaminophen does not, she explained.

The potent platelet inhibition provided by oral P2Y12 inhibitors is crucial to successful primary PCI for STEMI. But these platelet inhibitory effects are inherently slowed in STEMI patients owing to hemodynamic changes and delayed GI absorption. And even though both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend the use of opioids for pain control in STEMI patients, the fact is that these medications further delay the absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. And this delay is further exacerbated by the nausea and vomiting which are common side effects of IV fentanyl, she continued.

The impetus for the ON-TIME 3 trial was straightforward, the cardiologist said: “For years, STEMI patients have been treated with morphine or morphinelike drugs like fentanyl because of pain or sympathetic stress. To date, trials investigating alternative analgesics to opioids have been scarce.”

ON-TIME 3 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial in which 195 STEMI patients with a self-reported pain score of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale received crushed ticagrelor in the ambulance along with either 1,000 mg of IV acetaminophen or fentanyl at 1-2 mcg/kg.

Ticagrelor blood levels were significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group when measured just prior to primary PCI (151 ng/mL versus 60 ng/mL in the IV fentanyl group; immediately after PCI (326 versus 115 ng/mL), and 1 hour post PCI (488 versus 372 ng/mL).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in levels of platelet reactivity units measured immediately after primary PCI, Dr. Tavenier added.

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, confessed that prior to ON-TIME 3 he was unaware that administering opioids to STEMI patients results in delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Upon delving into the literature, however, he found that this is indeed a well-documented problem.

“The open question I have about this very elegant trial is whether the increased P2Y12 levels will translate into a measurable difference in clinical outcomes,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

The answer to that question would require a larger, longer-term trial. And he’s disinclined to wait around for that to happen.

“I think when we look at the risk balance, the risk of switching from an opioid to acetaminophen, if it works for the patient, is rather low. So this might be something to introduce in my practice,” the cardiologist said.

Dr. Tavenier and Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tavenier AH. EuroPCR 2020.

Concentrations of neurofilament light (NfL) chain in blood can detect concussion, its severity and help predict recovery in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), new research indicates.

“Blood NfL may be used to aid in the diagnosis of patients with concussion or mild TBI [and] to identify individuals at increased risk of developing persistent postconcussive symptoms following TBI,” said lead author Pashtun Shahim, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md.

“This study is the first to do a detailed assessment of serum NfL chain and advanced brain imaging in multiple cohorts, brain injury severities, and time points after injury. The cohorts included professional athletes and nonathletes, and over time up to 5 years after TBI,” Dr. Shahim added.

The study was published online July 8 in Neurology.
 

Rapid indicator of neuronal damage

The researchers studied two cohorts of patients with head injuries. In the first, they determined serum and CSF NfL chain levels in professional Swedish ice hockey players (median age, 27 years), including 45 with acute concussion, 31 with repetitive concussions and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PCS), 28 who contributed samples during preseason with no recent concussion, and 14 healthy nonathletes.

CSF and serum NfL concentrations were closely correlated (r = 0.71; P < .0001). Serum NfL distinguished players with persistent PCS due to repetitive concussions from preseason concussion-free players, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Higher CSF and serum NfL levels were associated with a higher number of concussions and severity of PCS after 1 year.

The second cohort involved 230 clinic-based adults (mean age, 43 years), including 162 with TBI and 68 healthy controls. In this cohort, patients with TBI had increased serum NfL concentrations compared with controls for up to 5 years, and these concentrations were able to distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Serum NfL also correlated with measures of functional outcome, MRI brain atrophy, and diffusion tensor imaging estimates of traumatic axonal injury.

“Our findings suggest that NfL concentrations in serum offer rapid and accessible means of assessing and predicting neuronal damage in patients with TBI,” the investigators wrote.

What’s needed going forward, said Dr. Shahim, is “validation in larger cohorts for determining what levels of NfL in blood may be associated with a specific type of TBI, and what the levels are in healthy individuals of different ages.”

Not ready for prime time

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher Filley, MD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, noted that NfL “may prove useful in identifying TBI patients at risk for prolonged symptoms and in enabling more focused treatment for these individuals.”

“These reports are richly laden with acute and longitudinal data that not only support the use of NfL as a convenient diagnostic test for TBI, but plausibly correlate with the neuropathology of TBI that is thought to play a major role in immediate and lasting cognitive disability,” he wrote.

Although the origin of TBI-induced cognitive decline is not entirely explained by traumatic axonal injury, “NfL appears to have much promise as a blood test that relates directly to the ubiquitous white matter damage of TBI, revealing a great deal about not only whether a TBI occurred, but also the extent of injury sustained, and how this injury may affect patient outcome for years thereafter,” Dr. Filley wrote.

However, he cautioned more research is needed before the blood test can be routinely applied to TBI diagnosis in clinical practice. “Among the hurdles still ahead are the standardization of measurement techniques across analytical platforms, and the determination of precise cutoffs between normal and abnormal values in different ages groups and at varying levels of TBI severity,” Dr. Filley noted.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Shahim and Dr. Filley have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concentrations of neurofilament light (NfL) chain in blood can detect concussion, its severity and help predict recovery in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), new research indicates.

“Blood NfL may be used to aid in the diagnosis of patients with concussion or mild TBI [and] to identify individuals at increased risk of developing persistent postconcussive symptoms following TBI,” said lead author Pashtun Shahim, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md.

“This study is the first to do a detailed assessment of serum NfL chain and advanced brain imaging in multiple cohorts, brain injury severities, and time points after injury. The cohorts included professional athletes and nonathletes, and over time up to 5 years after TBI,” Dr. Shahim added.

The study was published online July 8 in Neurology.
 

Rapid indicator of neuronal damage

The researchers studied two cohorts of patients with head injuries. In the first, they determined serum and CSF NfL chain levels in professional Swedish ice hockey players (median age, 27 years), including 45 with acute concussion, 31 with repetitive concussions and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PCS), 28 who contributed samples during preseason with no recent concussion, and 14 healthy nonathletes.

CSF and serum NfL concentrations were closely correlated (r = 0.71; P < .0001). Serum NfL distinguished players with persistent PCS due to repetitive concussions from preseason concussion-free players, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Higher CSF and serum NfL levels were associated with a higher number of concussions and severity of PCS after 1 year.

The second cohort involved 230 clinic-based adults (mean age, 43 years), including 162 with TBI and 68 healthy controls. In this cohort, patients with TBI had increased serum NfL concentrations compared with controls for up to 5 years, and these concentrations were able to distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Serum NfL also correlated with measures of functional outcome, MRI brain atrophy, and diffusion tensor imaging estimates of traumatic axonal injury.

“Our findings suggest that NfL concentrations in serum offer rapid and accessible means of assessing and predicting neuronal damage in patients with TBI,” the investigators wrote.

What’s needed going forward, said Dr. Shahim, is “validation in larger cohorts for determining what levels of NfL in blood may be associated with a specific type of TBI, and what the levels are in healthy individuals of different ages.”

Not ready for prime time

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher Filley, MD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, noted that NfL “may prove useful in identifying TBI patients at risk for prolonged symptoms and in enabling more focused treatment for these individuals.”

“These reports are richly laden with acute and longitudinal data that not only support the use of NfL as a convenient diagnostic test for TBI, but plausibly correlate with the neuropathology of TBI that is thought to play a major role in immediate and lasting cognitive disability,” he wrote.

Although the origin of TBI-induced cognitive decline is not entirely explained by traumatic axonal injury, “NfL appears to have much promise as a blood test that relates directly to the ubiquitous white matter damage of TBI, revealing a great deal about not only whether a TBI occurred, but also the extent of injury sustained, and how this injury may affect patient outcome for years thereafter,” Dr. Filley wrote.

However, he cautioned more research is needed before the blood test can be routinely applied to TBI diagnosis in clinical practice. “Among the hurdles still ahead are the standardization of measurement techniques across analytical platforms, and the determination of precise cutoffs between normal and abnormal values in different ages groups and at varying levels of TBI severity,” Dr. Filley noted.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Shahim and Dr. Filley have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concentrations of neurofilament light (NfL) chain in blood can detect concussion, its severity and help predict recovery in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), new research indicates.

“Blood NfL may be used to aid in the diagnosis of patients with concussion or mild TBI [and] to identify individuals at increased risk of developing persistent postconcussive symptoms following TBI,” said lead author Pashtun Shahim, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md.

“This study is the first to do a detailed assessment of serum NfL chain and advanced brain imaging in multiple cohorts, brain injury severities, and time points after injury. The cohorts included professional athletes and nonathletes, and over time up to 5 years after TBI,” Dr. Shahim added.

The study was published online July 8 in Neurology.
 

Rapid indicator of neuronal damage

The researchers studied two cohorts of patients with head injuries. In the first, they determined serum and CSF NfL chain levels in professional Swedish ice hockey players (median age, 27 years), including 45 with acute concussion, 31 with repetitive concussions and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PCS), 28 who contributed samples during preseason with no recent concussion, and 14 healthy nonathletes.

CSF and serum NfL concentrations were closely correlated (r = 0.71; P < .0001). Serum NfL distinguished players with persistent PCS due to repetitive concussions from preseason concussion-free players, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Higher CSF and serum NfL levels were associated with a higher number of concussions and severity of PCS after 1 year.

The second cohort involved 230 clinic-based adults (mean age, 43 years), including 162 with TBI and 68 healthy controls. In this cohort, patients with TBI had increased serum NfL concentrations compared with controls for up to 5 years, and these concentrations were able to distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Serum NfL also correlated with measures of functional outcome, MRI brain atrophy, and diffusion tensor imaging estimates of traumatic axonal injury.

“Our findings suggest that NfL concentrations in serum offer rapid and accessible means of assessing and predicting neuronal damage in patients with TBI,” the investigators wrote.

What’s needed going forward, said Dr. Shahim, is “validation in larger cohorts for determining what levels of NfL in blood may be associated with a specific type of TBI, and what the levels are in healthy individuals of different ages.”

Not ready for prime time

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher Filley, MD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, noted that NfL “may prove useful in identifying TBI patients at risk for prolonged symptoms and in enabling more focused treatment for these individuals.”

“These reports are richly laden with acute and longitudinal data that not only support the use of NfL as a convenient diagnostic test for TBI, but plausibly correlate with the neuropathology of TBI that is thought to play a major role in immediate and lasting cognitive disability,” he wrote.

Although the origin of TBI-induced cognitive decline is not entirely explained by traumatic axonal injury, “NfL appears to have much promise as a blood test that relates directly to the ubiquitous white matter damage of TBI, revealing a great deal about not only whether a TBI occurred, but also the extent of injury sustained, and how this injury may affect patient outcome for years thereafter,” Dr. Filley wrote.

However, he cautioned more research is needed before the blood test can be routinely applied to TBI diagnosis in clinical practice. “Among the hurdles still ahead are the standardization of measurement techniques across analytical platforms, and the determination of precise cutoffs between normal and abnormal values in different ages groups and at varying levels of TBI severity,” Dr. Filley noted.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Shahim and Dr. Filley have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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