The Hospitalist

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

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.

Hospitalists frequently encounter patients with heart failure – a complex, clinical syndrome, which has high prevalence, mortality, hospitalization rates, and health care costs.

The HM20 Virtual session “Updates in Heart Failure” will provide literature updates for all types of heart failure patient scenarios – patients with acute and chronic heart failure, those who are hospitalized with heart failure, and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The popular session with questions and answers will be held on Aug. 25.

Presenter Dustin Smith, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, and section chief for education in medical specialty at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, will discuss recent trends, diagnostics, therapeutics, and prognostics for heart failure. He’ll also provide a summary of recent changes to clinical practice guidelines.

“The significance of staying knowledgeable and updated regarding this common admission diagnosis cannot be overstated,” Dr. Smith said. Attendees of this clinical update should learn important practices from new evidence in literature, including an unearthed risk grade predictor of acute heart failure mortality, a diagnostic tool for HFpEF in euvolemic patients with unexplained dyspnea, an examination of the potassium “repletion reflex” in patients hospitalized with heart failure, dietary patterns associated with incident heart failure, and therapies efficacious for HFrEF and/or HFpEF.

“The goal of this session is for attendees to incorporate this new information into their clinical practice so they can optimally manage patients with heart failure,” Dr. Smith said.

The session is specifically curated to impact the clinical practice of hospitalists who provide care for patients with heart failure in the acute care setting and beyond. Key impact areas of clinical practice that will be tackled include:

• Augmenting one’s clinical acumen to diagnose HFpEF.
• Calculating mortality risk for patients with acute heart failure.
• Recognizing other predictors of risk for patients hospitalized with heart failure.
• Recommending dietary, medication, and interventional therapies to prevent future heart failure morbidity and mortality.

Dr. Smith will conclude each literature review with a summary of take-home learning points carefully selected to either change, modify, or confirm the current practice and teaching for providers who care for heart failure patients.

Although Dr. Smith has presented the “Updates in Heart Failure” session in various educational arenas in the past, this is a new update. He has gained vast experience and expertise in this area from conducting extensive and in-depth literature reviews on managing heart failure while preparing for presentations on this topic.

In addition, Dr. Smith has contributed to original research manuscripts, book chapters, and board review–style exam questions in cardiology – including heart failure – and evidence-based medicine topics as an author and editor. He has also sought out additional training and completed faculty development programs targeted at improving his knowledge and skill set to teach evidence-based clinical practice.

Dr. Smith had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Updates in Heart Failure

Live Q&A – Tuesday, Aug. 25 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Hospitalists frequently encounter patients with heart failure – a complex, clinical syndrome, which has high prevalence, mortality, hospitalization rates, and health care costs.

The HM20 Virtual session “Updates in Heart Failure” will provide literature updates for all types of heart failure patient scenarios – patients with acute and chronic heart failure, those who are hospitalized with heart failure, and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The popular session with questions and answers will be held on Aug. 25.

Presenter Dustin Smith, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, and section chief for education in medical specialty at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, will discuss recent trends, diagnostics, therapeutics, and prognostics for heart failure. He’ll also provide a summary of recent changes to clinical practice guidelines.

“The significance of staying knowledgeable and updated regarding this common admission diagnosis cannot be overstated,” Dr. Smith said. Attendees of this clinical update should learn important practices from new evidence in literature, including an unearthed risk grade predictor of acute heart failure mortality, a diagnostic tool for HFpEF in euvolemic patients with unexplained dyspnea, an examination of the potassium “repletion reflex” in patients hospitalized with heart failure, dietary patterns associated with incident heart failure, and therapies efficacious for HFrEF and/or HFpEF.

“The goal of this session is for attendees to incorporate this new information into their clinical practice so they can optimally manage patients with heart failure,” Dr. Smith said.

The session is specifically curated to impact the clinical practice of hospitalists who provide care for patients with heart failure in the acute care setting and beyond. Key impact areas of clinical practice that will be tackled include:

• Augmenting one’s clinical acumen to diagnose HFpEF.
• Calculating mortality risk for patients with acute heart failure.
• Recognizing other predictors of risk for patients hospitalized with heart failure.
• Recommending dietary, medication, and interventional therapies to prevent future heart failure morbidity and mortality.

Dr. Smith will conclude each literature review with a summary of take-home learning points carefully selected to either change, modify, or confirm the current practice and teaching for providers who care for heart failure patients.

Although Dr. Smith has presented the “Updates in Heart Failure” session in various educational arenas in the past, this is a new update. He has gained vast experience and expertise in this area from conducting extensive and in-depth literature reviews on managing heart failure while preparing for presentations on this topic.

In addition, Dr. Smith has contributed to original research manuscripts, book chapters, and board review–style exam questions in cardiology – including heart failure – and evidence-based medicine topics as an author and editor. He has also sought out additional training and completed faculty development programs targeted at improving his knowledge and skill set to teach evidence-based clinical practice.

Dr. Smith had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Updates in Heart Failure

Live Q&A – Tuesday, Aug. 25 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Hospitalists frequently encounter patients with heart failure – a complex, clinical syndrome, which has high prevalence, mortality, hospitalization rates, and health care costs.

The HM20 Virtual session “Updates in Heart Failure” will provide literature updates for all types of heart failure patient scenarios – patients with acute and chronic heart failure, those who are hospitalized with heart failure, and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The popular session with questions and answers will be held on Aug. 25.

Presenter Dustin Smith, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, and section chief for education in medical specialty at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, will discuss recent trends, diagnostics, therapeutics, and prognostics for heart failure. He’ll also provide a summary of recent changes to clinical practice guidelines.

“The significance of staying knowledgeable and updated regarding this common admission diagnosis cannot be overstated,” Dr. Smith said. Attendees of this clinical update should learn important practices from new evidence in literature, including an unearthed risk grade predictor of acute heart failure mortality, a diagnostic tool for HFpEF in euvolemic patients with unexplained dyspnea, an examination of the potassium “repletion reflex” in patients hospitalized with heart failure, dietary patterns associated with incident heart failure, and therapies efficacious for HFrEF and/or HFpEF.

“The goal of this session is for attendees to incorporate this new information into their clinical practice so they can optimally manage patients with heart failure,” Dr. Smith said.

The session is specifically curated to impact the clinical practice of hospitalists who provide care for patients with heart failure in the acute care setting and beyond. Key impact areas of clinical practice that will be tackled include:

• Augmenting one’s clinical acumen to diagnose HFpEF.
• Calculating mortality risk for patients with acute heart failure.
• Recognizing other predictors of risk for patients hospitalized with heart failure.
• Recommending dietary, medication, and interventional therapies to prevent future heart failure morbidity and mortality.

Dr. Smith will conclude each literature review with a summary of take-home learning points carefully selected to either change, modify, or confirm the current practice and teaching for providers who care for heart failure patients.

Although Dr. Smith has presented the “Updates in Heart Failure” session in various educational arenas in the past, this is a new update. He has gained vast experience and expertise in this area from conducting extensive and in-depth literature reviews on managing heart failure while preparing for presentations on this topic.

In addition, Dr. Smith has contributed to original research manuscripts, book chapters, and board review–style exam questions in cardiology – including heart failure – and evidence-based medicine topics as an author and editor. He has also sought out additional training and completed faculty development programs targeted at improving his knowledge and skill set to teach evidence-based clinical practice.

Dr. Smith had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Updates in Heart Failure

Live Q&A – Tuesday, Aug. 25 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

It is well established that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) patients suffer worse health outcomes, relative to patients who are heterosexual and cisgender – that is, those whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex. The reasons for these disparities are multifactorial but include discrimination and limited provider knowledge about LGBTQ-specific health concerns.

These disparities – and what hospitalists can do to try to ameliorate them on the job – will be explored in a session at HM20 Virtual, “When the Answers Aren’t Straight Forward: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Updates for the Hospitalist.”

Specific topics to be discussed at this session will include inpatient continuation vs. cessation of gender-affirming hormone therapy (such as estrogen); management of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for inpatients; and systems disparities, according to Tyler Anstett, DO, copresenter and assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado. He and copresenter Keshav Khanijow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, will share results from the Q-HEALTH (Quantifying Hospitalist Education and Awareness of LGBTQ Topics in Health) national survey of SHM members about their knowledge and attitudes regarding LGBTQ health. This survey, sponsored by SHM’s Education Committee, identified knowledge and comfort gaps in caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Most respondents say they are interested in receiving more didactic training on this topic, building on an introductory session on LGBTQ+ health presented at last year’s SHM Annual Conference. They also named the Annual Conference as one of their top venues for receiving such training.

The session at HM20 Virtual will cover the health disparities identified in LGBTQ+ populations, with case examples that highlight those disparities, Dr. Anstett said. “We will review results from Q-HEALTH, the SHM-wide survey on provider attitudes, knowledge, and comfort in caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Finally, the session will cover basic LGBTQ+ terminology and, through clinical scenarios, provide attendees with some basic skills for improving their practice for LGBTQ+ patients.”

With over 11 million Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, hospitalists will certainly encounter patients of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, Dr. Anstett said. Hospitalists should serve as allies for their patients, including for those who are LGBTQ+. Through this session, attendees can reflect on individual practice and learn how to educate others on LGBTQ+ health basics.

“We hope the cases we present will provide attendees with an introduction to the health issues the LGBTQ+ community faces with greater prevalence, and what hospitalists can be thinking about when they approach these issues,” Dr. Khanijow added.

Dr. Anstett and Dr. Khanijow had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

When the Answers Aren’t Straight Forward: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Updates for the Hospitalist

It is well established that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) patients suffer worse health outcomes, relative to patients who are heterosexual and cisgender – that is, those whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex. The reasons for these disparities are multifactorial but include discrimination and limited provider knowledge about LGBTQ-specific health concerns.

These disparities – and what hospitalists can do to try to ameliorate them on the job – will be explored in a session at HM20 Virtual, “When the Answers Aren’t Straight Forward: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Updates for the Hospitalist.”

Specific topics to be discussed at this session will include inpatient continuation vs. cessation of gender-affirming hormone therapy (such as estrogen); management of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for inpatients; and systems disparities, according to Tyler Anstett, DO, copresenter and assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado. He and copresenter Keshav Khanijow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, will share results from the Q-HEALTH (Quantifying Hospitalist Education and Awareness of LGBTQ Topics in Health) national survey of SHM members about their knowledge and attitudes regarding LGBTQ health. This survey, sponsored by SHM’s Education Committee, identified knowledge and comfort gaps in caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Most respondents say they are interested in receiving more didactic training on this topic, building on an introductory session on LGBTQ+ health presented at last year’s SHM Annual Conference. They also named the Annual Conference as one of their top venues for receiving such training.

The session at HM20 Virtual will cover the health disparities identified in LGBTQ+ populations, with case examples that highlight those disparities, Dr. Anstett said. “We will review results from Q-HEALTH, the SHM-wide survey on provider attitudes, knowledge, and comfort in caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Finally, the session will cover basic LGBTQ+ terminology and, through clinical scenarios, provide attendees with some basic skills for improving their practice for LGBTQ+ patients.”

With over 11 million Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, hospitalists will certainly encounter patients of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, Dr. Anstett said. Hospitalists should serve as allies for their patients, including for those who are LGBTQ+. Through this session, attendees can reflect on individual practice and learn how to educate others on LGBTQ+ health basics.

“We hope the cases we present will provide attendees with an introduction to the health issues the LGBTQ+ community faces with greater prevalence, and what hospitalists can be thinking about when they approach these issues,” Dr. Khanijow added.

Dr. Anstett and Dr. Khanijow had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

When the Answers Aren’t Straight Forward: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Updates for the Hospitalist

It is well established that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) patients suffer worse health outcomes, relative to patients who are heterosexual and cisgender – that is, those whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex. The reasons for these disparities are multifactorial but include discrimination and limited provider knowledge about LGBTQ-specific health concerns.

These disparities – and what hospitalists can do to try to ameliorate them on the job – will be explored in a session at HM20 Virtual, “When the Answers Aren’t Straight Forward: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Updates for the Hospitalist.”

Specific topics to be discussed at this session will include inpatient continuation vs. cessation of gender-affirming hormone therapy (such as estrogen); management of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for inpatients; and systems disparities, according to Tyler Anstett, DO, copresenter and assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado. He and copresenter Keshav Khanijow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, will share results from the Q-HEALTH (Quantifying Hospitalist Education and Awareness of LGBTQ Topics in Health) national survey of SHM members about their knowledge and attitudes regarding LGBTQ health. This survey, sponsored by SHM’s Education Committee, identified knowledge and comfort gaps in caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Most respondents say they are interested in receiving more didactic training on this topic, building on an introductory session on LGBTQ+ health presented at last year’s SHM Annual Conference. They also named the Annual Conference as one of their top venues for receiving such training.

The session at HM20 Virtual will cover the health disparities identified in LGBTQ+ populations, with case examples that highlight those disparities, Dr. Anstett said. “We will review results from Q-HEALTH, the SHM-wide survey on provider attitudes, knowledge, and comfort in caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Finally, the session will cover basic LGBTQ+ terminology and, through clinical scenarios, provide attendees with some basic skills for improving their practice for LGBTQ+ patients.”

With over 11 million Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, hospitalists will certainly encounter patients of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, Dr. Anstett said. Hospitalists should serve as allies for their patients, including for those who are LGBTQ+. Through this session, attendees can reflect on individual practice and learn how to educate others on LGBTQ+ health basics.

“We hope the cases we present will provide attendees with an introduction to the health issues the LGBTQ+ community faces with greater prevalence, and what hospitalists can be thinking about when they approach these issues,” Dr. Khanijow added.

Dr. Anstett and Dr. Khanijow had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

When the Answers Aren’t Straight Forward: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Health Updates for the Hospitalist

During an oncologic emergency, making a clinical decision during the early diagnostic period is one of the most critical things a hospitalist can do when caring for patients with cancer. Hospitalists may not always be well versed in the symptoms of oncologic emergencies, though, particularly with newer treatments like immunotherapy and targeted therapies. They also may be tempted to contact colleagues in oncology when they may be qualified to handle these emergencies on their own.

At the end of her question-and-answer session, “Getting to Know Oncology Emergencies: Recognition and Management” to be presented on Aug. 12 at HM20 Virtual, the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Megan Kruse, MD, hopes hospitalists will be able to recognize the signs and symptoms of “classic” oncologic emergencies they are likely to see in routine practice, as well as side effects of newer therapies they may not have encountered. Attendees will know how to manage these situations and understand when they need to involve a cancer specialist.

“Early recognition of these emergencies is crucial, and there are simple initial interventions that can make a big difference in patient outcomes,” said Dr. Kruse, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

In her presentation, Dr. Kruse will review oncologic emergencies that can occur in patients with acute leukemia such as acute blast crisis, as well as spinal cord compression and neutropenic fever. These complications are common in patients with cancer: Many cancers, such as multiple myeloma, lung cancer, and breast cancer, can cause spinal metastases that lead to spinal cord compression, while studies have shown neutropenic fever can occur in up to 80% of patients who undergo chemotherapy.

The presentation also will outline how hospitalists can manage specific side effects of immunotherapy and targeted therapies during an emergency situation. Dr. Kruse noted the session also will focus on when to start steroids for immune-related adverse event concerns and when to think about adding alternate immunosuppression. Complications of these therapies can differ from those of traditional chemotherapy, and not all hospitalists may be expecting them. Side effects from cancer therapy also can present months after treatment, further complicating the nature of oncologic emergencies in a hospital setting.

Recognizing the signs of such emergencies can be crucial for patients, especially if clinical decisions are made before a hospitalist can reach an oncologist for consult. Some decisions can be made by hospitalists themselves, while others may require specialty knowledge from an oncologist, Dr. Kruse noted. Regardless, it is important to consider cancer treatment history in a patient’s differential diagnosis.

Dr. Kruse has given presentations on oncologic emergencies at SHM annual conferences in the past, but notes this year’s virtual presentation will include more cases and examples of complications to improve recognition of these conditions. Empowering a hospitalist to know which decisions they can make on their own – and what situations need an intervention from oncologist colleagues – is important to optimize outcomes in patients with oncologic emergencies.

“I hope that attendees will leave with a better idea of what symptoms should be, warning signs of impending oncologic emergencies/complications, and what measures can be taken to treat these conditions prior to oncology service involvement,” Dr. Kruse said.

Dr. Kruse reported advisory board involvement for Novartis Oncology and consulting for Puma Biotechnology.

Getting to Know Oncology Emergencies: Recognition and Management

Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 12, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

During an oncologic emergency, making a clinical decision during the early diagnostic period is one of the most critical things a hospitalist can do when caring for patients with cancer. Hospitalists may not always be well versed in the symptoms of oncologic emergencies, though, particularly with newer treatments like immunotherapy and targeted therapies. They also may be tempted to contact colleagues in oncology when they may be qualified to handle these emergencies on their own.

At the end of her question-and-answer session, “Getting to Know Oncology Emergencies: Recognition and Management” to be presented on Aug. 12 at HM20 Virtual, the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Megan Kruse, MD, hopes hospitalists will be able to recognize the signs and symptoms of “classic” oncologic emergencies they are likely to see in routine practice, as well as side effects of newer therapies they may not have encountered. Attendees will know how to manage these situations and understand when they need to involve a cancer specialist.

“Early recognition of these emergencies is crucial, and there are simple initial interventions that can make a big difference in patient outcomes,” said Dr. Kruse, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

In her presentation, Dr. Kruse will review oncologic emergencies that can occur in patients with acute leukemia such as acute blast crisis, as well as spinal cord compression and neutropenic fever. These complications are common in patients with cancer: Many cancers, such as multiple myeloma, lung cancer, and breast cancer, can cause spinal metastases that lead to spinal cord compression, while studies have shown neutropenic fever can occur in up to 80% of patients who undergo chemotherapy.

The presentation also will outline how hospitalists can manage specific side effects of immunotherapy and targeted therapies during an emergency situation. Dr. Kruse noted the session also will focus on when to start steroids for immune-related adverse event concerns and when to think about adding alternate immunosuppression. Complications of these therapies can differ from those of traditional chemotherapy, and not all hospitalists may be expecting them. Side effects from cancer therapy also can present months after treatment, further complicating the nature of oncologic emergencies in a hospital setting.

Recognizing the signs of such emergencies can be crucial for patients, especially if clinical decisions are made before a hospitalist can reach an oncologist for consult. Some decisions can be made by hospitalists themselves, while others may require specialty knowledge from an oncologist, Dr. Kruse noted. Regardless, it is important to consider cancer treatment history in a patient’s differential diagnosis.

Dr. Kruse has given presentations on oncologic emergencies at SHM annual conferences in the past, but notes this year’s virtual presentation will include more cases and examples of complications to improve recognition of these conditions. Empowering a hospitalist to know which decisions they can make on their own – and what situations need an intervention from oncologist colleagues – is important to optimize outcomes in patients with oncologic emergencies.

“I hope that attendees will leave with a better idea of what symptoms should be, warning signs of impending oncologic emergencies/complications, and what measures can be taken to treat these conditions prior to oncology service involvement,” Dr. Kruse said.

Dr. Kruse reported advisory board involvement for Novartis Oncology and consulting for Puma Biotechnology.

Getting to Know Oncology Emergencies: Recognition and Management

Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 12, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

During an oncologic emergency, making a clinical decision during the early diagnostic period is one of the most critical things a hospitalist can do when caring for patients with cancer. Hospitalists may not always be well versed in the symptoms of oncologic emergencies, though, particularly with newer treatments like immunotherapy and targeted therapies. They also may be tempted to contact colleagues in oncology when they may be qualified to handle these emergencies on their own.

At the end of her question-and-answer session, “Getting to Know Oncology Emergencies: Recognition and Management” to be presented on Aug. 12 at HM20 Virtual, the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Megan Kruse, MD, hopes hospitalists will be able to recognize the signs and symptoms of “classic” oncologic emergencies they are likely to see in routine practice, as well as side effects of newer therapies they may not have encountered. Attendees will know how to manage these situations and understand when they need to involve a cancer specialist.

“Early recognition of these emergencies is crucial, and there are simple initial interventions that can make a big difference in patient outcomes,” said Dr. Kruse, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

In her presentation, Dr. Kruse will review oncologic emergencies that can occur in patients with acute leukemia such as acute blast crisis, as well as spinal cord compression and neutropenic fever. These complications are common in patients with cancer: Many cancers, such as multiple myeloma, lung cancer, and breast cancer, can cause spinal metastases that lead to spinal cord compression, while studies have shown neutropenic fever can occur in up to 80% of patients who undergo chemotherapy.

The presentation also will outline how hospitalists can manage specific side effects of immunotherapy and targeted therapies during an emergency situation. Dr. Kruse noted the session also will focus on when to start steroids for immune-related adverse event concerns and when to think about adding alternate immunosuppression. Complications of these therapies can differ from those of traditional chemotherapy, and not all hospitalists may be expecting them. Side effects from cancer therapy also can present months after treatment, further complicating the nature of oncologic emergencies in a hospital setting.

Recognizing the signs of such emergencies can be crucial for patients, especially if clinical decisions are made before a hospitalist can reach an oncologist for consult. Some decisions can be made by hospitalists themselves, while others may require specialty knowledge from an oncologist, Dr. Kruse noted. Regardless, it is important to consider cancer treatment history in a patient’s differential diagnosis.

Dr. Kruse has given presentations on oncologic emergencies at SHM annual conferences in the past, but notes this year’s virtual presentation will include more cases and examples of complications to improve recognition of these conditions. Empowering a hospitalist to know which decisions they can make on their own – and what situations need an intervention from oncologist colleagues – is important to optimize outcomes in patients with oncologic emergencies.

“I hope that attendees will leave with a better idea of what symptoms should be, warning signs of impending oncologic emergencies/complications, and what measures can be taken to treat these conditions prior to oncology service involvement,” Dr. Kruse said.

Dr. Kruse reported advisory board involvement for Novartis Oncology and consulting for Puma Biotechnology.

Getting to Know Oncology Emergencies: Recognition and Management

Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 12, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Hospitalists are constantly battling infection. As patients come through their doors, hospitalists are expected to know the usual suspects – pseudomonas, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus – while also having to balance the potential for adverse reactions, drug shortages, and other challenging clinical scenarios.

He hopes attendees of HM20 Virtual will appreciate the changes and encourages those who have attended his presentation in previous years to come see what is new, but admitted newcomers may think the presentation’s title is a bit of a misnomer.

“Despite the title of the talk, there really isn’t any way to make antibiotics ridiculously simple,” he said.

Dr. Kim, who is also an editorial board member for The Hospitalist, said the origin of “Antibiotics Made Ridiculously Simple” took place during his residency, where he had an interest in infectious disease. This interest carried over to his time in fellowship at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California – and was enough to become board certified in infectious disease by the American Board of Internal Medicine. Infectious disease continues to interest him now as an attending, he said, and since he joined Emory Healthcare in 2012, he has given a version of this presentation every year.

HM20 Virtual attendees will come away from the presentation with an idea of how to choose an antibiotic regimen, Dr. Kim said, including how to select an antibiotic when you’re worried about Pseudomonas, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus or other likely organisms. “There are a variety of drugs out there that have activity against our ‘usual suspects,’ ” he said.

Attendees will also learn to select antibiotic options that have empiric coverage during a shortage of piperacillin/tazobactam (Zosyn), vancomycin, or your preferred drug of choice for treating common infections. He will also review the latest drugs that have been released over the past few years so attendees can add them to their armamentarium.

“I won’t necessarily expect attendees to use everything I talk about, but if you have a patient on service that infectious disease started Vabomere on, you’ll at least have a general idea of what they were worried about,” Dr. Kim said.

One practice pearl he hopes attendees take away from his presentation: Allergies to beta-lactam antibiotics like penicillin (PCN) derivatives are not as common as most providers and patients believe, and not giving these antibiotics to patients can actually decrease the chance that the patient gets appropriate therapy while also increasing the cost of care.

“I hope that my talk changes practice by making people aware of how infrequent true clinically significant PCN cross-reactions are so that patients can get more cost-effective and medically effective therapy,” he said.Dr. Kim reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Antibiotics Made Ridiculously Simple Live Q&A: Tuesday, August 18, 3:30-4:30 p.m.

Hospitalists are constantly battling infection. As patients come through their doors, hospitalists are expected to know the usual suspects – pseudomonas, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus – while also having to balance the potential for adverse reactions, drug shortages, and other challenging clinical scenarios.

He hopes attendees of HM20 Virtual will appreciate the changes and encourages those who have attended his presentation in previous years to come see what is new, but admitted newcomers may think the presentation’s title is a bit of a misnomer.

“Despite the title of the talk, there really isn’t any way to make antibiotics ridiculously simple,” he said.

Dr. Kim, who is also an editorial board member for The Hospitalist, said the origin of “Antibiotics Made Ridiculously Simple” took place during his residency, where he had an interest in infectious disease. This interest carried over to his time in fellowship at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California – and was enough to become board certified in infectious disease by the American Board of Internal Medicine. Infectious disease continues to interest him now as an attending, he said, and since he joined Emory Healthcare in 2012, he has given a version of this presentation every year.

HM20 Virtual attendees will come away from the presentation with an idea of how to choose an antibiotic regimen, Dr. Kim said, including how to select an antibiotic when you’re worried about Pseudomonas, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus or other likely organisms. “There are a variety of drugs out there that have activity against our ‘usual suspects,’ ” he said.

Attendees will also learn to select antibiotic options that have empiric coverage during a shortage of piperacillin/tazobactam (Zosyn), vancomycin, or your preferred drug of choice for treating common infections. He will also review the latest drugs that have been released over the past few years so attendees can add them to their armamentarium.

“I won’t necessarily expect attendees to use everything I talk about, but if you have a patient on service that infectious disease started Vabomere on, you’ll at least have a general idea of what they were worried about,” Dr. Kim said.

One practice pearl he hopes attendees take away from his presentation: Allergies to beta-lactam antibiotics like penicillin (PCN) derivatives are not as common as most providers and patients believe, and not giving these antibiotics to patients can actually decrease the chance that the patient gets appropriate therapy while also increasing the cost of care.

“I hope that my talk changes practice by making people aware of how infrequent true clinically significant PCN cross-reactions are so that patients can get more cost-effective and medically effective therapy,” he said.Dr. Kim reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Antibiotics Made Ridiculously Simple Live Q&A: Tuesday, August 18, 3:30-4:30 p.m.

Hospitalists are constantly battling infection. As patients come through their doors, hospitalists are expected to know the usual suspects – pseudomonas, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus – while also having to balance the potential for adverse reactions, drug shortages, and other challenging clinical scenarios.

He hopes attendees of HM20 Virtual will appreciate the changes and encourages those who have attended his presentation in previous years to come see what is new, but admitted newcomers may think the presentation’s title is a bit of a misnomer.

“Despite the title of the talk, there really isn’t any way to make antibiotics ridiculously simple,” he said.

Dr. Kim, who is also an editorial board member for The Hospitalist, said the origin of “Antibiotics Made Ridiculously Simple” took place during his residency, where he had an interest in infectious disease. This interest carried over to his time in fellowship at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California – and was enough to become board certified in infectious disease by the American Board of Internal Medicine. Infectious disease continues to interest him now as an attending, he said, and since he joined Emory Healthcare in 2012, he has given a version of this presentation every year.

HM20 Virtual attendees will come away from the presentation with an idea of how to choose an antibiotic regimen, Dr. Kim said, including how to select an antibiotic when you’re worried about Pseudomonas, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus or other likely organisms. “There are a variety of drugs out there that have activity against our ‘usual suspects,’ ” he said.

Attendees will also learn to select antibiotic options that have empiric coverage during a shortage of piperacillin/tazobactam (Zosyn), vancomycin, or your preferred drug of choice for treating common infections. He will also review the latest drugs that have been released over the past few years so attendees can add them to their armamentarium.

“I won’t necessarily expect attendees to use everything I talk about, but if you have a patient on service that infectious disease started Vabomere on, you’ll at least have a general idea of what they were worried about,” Dr. Kim said.

One practice pearl he hopes attendees take away from his presentation: Allergies to beta-lactam antibiotics like penicillin (PCN) derivatives are not as common as most providers and patients believe, and not giving these antibiotics to patients can actually decrease the chance that the patient gets appropriate therapy while also increasing the cost of care.

“I hope that my talk changes practice by making people aware of how infrequent true clinically significant PCN cross-reactions are so that patients can get more cost-effective and medically effective therapy,” he said.Dr. Kim reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Antibiotics Made Ridiculously Simple Live Q&A: Tuesday, August 18, 3:30-4:30 p.m.

For much of HM20 Virtual, hospitalists will gravitate toward individual sessions that reflect their unique interests. Plenary sessions are different, and as Kurt Pfeifer, MD, SFHM, likes to put it, they bring hospitalists together as “one big family.” The annual “Update in Hospital Medicine” session will go a step further by highlighting the work and insights of what Dr. Pfeifer affectionately calls the “extended family.” 

Scott Kaatz, DO, MSc, SFHM, a hospitalist at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, explained that “the Update has a long-standing tradition at the national meeting as an overview of the most impactful or insightful publications relevant to clinicians working in the hospital, which includes internists, pediatricians, obstetricians, family physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other specialties.”

Why does the Update embrace such a wide focus? Because there’s a need for a broader perspective, according to Dr. Pfeifer, professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference has many superb offerings with specific focuses that help attendees fill knowledge and practice gaps and network with individuals with similar interests,” he said. “All of those different offerings highlight something that is very cool about hospital medicine – its diversity. However, it’s also important for us to come together as one big family to support each other and advocate for the larger cause of hospital medicine. With the “Update in Hospital Medicine,” attendees can specifically hear about the clinical changes happening in their “extended family.”

For much of HM20 Virtual, hospitalists will gravitate toward individual sessions that reflect their unique interests. Plenary sessions are different, and as Kurt Pfeifer, MD, SFHM, likes to put it, they bring hospitalists together as “one big family.” The annual “Update in Hospital Medicine” session will go a step further by highlighting the work and insights of what Dr. Pfeifer affectionately calls the “extended family.” 

Scott Kaatz, DO, MSc, SFHM, a hospitalist at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, explained that “the Update has a long-standing tradition at the national meeting as an overview of the most impactful or insightful publications relevant to clinicians working in the hospital, which includes internists, pediatricians, obstetricians, family physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other specialties.”

Why does the Update embrace such a wide focus? Because there’s a need for a broader perspective, according to Dr. Pfeifer, professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference has many superb offerings with specific focuses that help attendees fill knowledge and practice gaps and network with individuals with similar interests,” he said. “All of those different offerings highlight something that is very cool about hospital medicine – its diversity. However, it’s also important for us to come together as one big family to support each other and advocate for the larger cause of hospital medicine. With the “Update in Hospital Medicine,” attendees can specifically hear about the clinical changes happening in their “extended family.”

For much of HM20 Virtual, hospitalists will gravitate toward individual sessions that reflect their unique interests. Plenary sessions are different, and as Kurt Pfeifer, MD, SFHM, likes to put it, they bring hospitalists together as “one big family.” The annual “Update in Hospital Medicine” session will go a step further by highlighting the work and insights of what Dr. Pfeifer affectionately calls the “extended family.” 

Scott Kaatz, DO, MSc, SFHM, a hospitalist at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, explained that “the Update has a long-standing tradition at the national meeting as an overview of the most impactful or insightful publications relevant to clinicians working in the hospital, which includes internists, pediatricians, obstetricians, family physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other specialties.”

Why does the Update embrace such a wide focus? Because there’s a need for a broader perspective, according to Dr. Pfeifer, professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference has many superb offerings with specific focuses that help attendees fill knowledge and practice gaps and network with individuals with similar interests,” he said. “All of those different offerings highlight something that is very cool about hospital medicine – its diversity. However, it’s also important for us to come together as one big family to support each other and advocate for the larger cause of hospital medicine. With the “Update in Hospital Medicine,” attendees can specifically hear about the clinical changes happening in their “extended family.”