MDedge Neurology

Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.

Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.

“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.

“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”

About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.

Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.

The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.

As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.

A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.

The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.

Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.

In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.

“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”

In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”

The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.

“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”

He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.

“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”

Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.

“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.

Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.

“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.

“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”

About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.

Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.

The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.

As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.

A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.

The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.

Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.

In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.

“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”

In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”

The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.

“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”

He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.

“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”

Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.

“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.

Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.

“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.

“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”

About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.

Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.

The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.

As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.

A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.

The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.

Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.

In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.

“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”

In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”

The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.

“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”

He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.

“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”

Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.

“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) may not pose a higher risk for complications in pregnant women, according to a new study published online Feb. 3 in Neurology Clinical Practice. While pregnancy and childbirth are not regarded as conditions that engender high-risk pregnancy in the MS population, previous studies evaluating the effects of MS on pregnancy and parturition have yet to fully elucidate some outcomes for pregnant women and their babies in multiple sclerosis.

“Women with multiple sclerosis may be understandably concerned about the risk of pregnancy,” said Melinda Magyari, MD, PhD, a consultant at the University of Copenhagen. “While previous research has shown there is no higher risk of birth defect for babies born to women with MS, we wanted to find out if women with MS are at risk for a variety of pregnancy complications.”

MS is regarded as a progressive, neurological disease mediated by the immune system that demands careful consideration of numerous situations and life changes including family planning. The MS population is overwhelmingly female, as women account for three out of every four cases of MS. The majority of these women range from 20 to 40 years of age at the time of being diagnosed with MS. Despite the unknown risks of pregnancy-related complications and various perinatal complications in this patient population, women who have MS are not discouraged from conceiving.
 

Assessing pregnancy outcomes

This nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study evaluated the pregnancies of 2,930 women with MS between Jan. 1, 1997, and Dec. 31, 2016, registered in the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry. The researchers compared pregnancy-related and prenatal outcomes to a 5% random sample of 56,958 randomly-selected pregnant women from Denmark’s general population who did not have MS. They found no differences in the risks associated with several pregnancy-related complications (e.g., preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, or placental complications), emergency Cesarean section (C-section), instrumental delivery, stillbirth, preterm birth, or congenital malformation. Apgar scores were low in both groups. A composite of various biometrics in newborns such as reflexes, muscle tone, and heart rate immediately following birth, the Apgar score is used to help assess the neonatal health, with a value of less than 7 considered low. Here, preterm birth is defined as delivery occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, and stillbirth describes a fetus born dead after 22 weeks of gestation.

Women in the MS cohort were more likely to have elective C-sections (odds ratio, 2.89 [95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.16]), induced labor (OR, 1.15 [95%CI, 1.01-1.31]) and have babies with low birth weight based on their gestational age (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.04-1.60]). Nearly 30% of babies born in the cohort (n = 851) were born to mothers who had received disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Neonates exposed to DMT weighed an average of 116 g less than babies born to mothers who had not received DMT (3,378 g vs. 3,494 g) with a slightly lower gestational age (39 weeks as opposed to 40 weeks). However, babies born to mothers with MS were less likely to show signs of asphyxia (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97]) than the comparison cohort.

“We found overall, their pregnancies were just as healthy as those of the moms without MS,” Dr. Magyari said.
 

Comprehensive data

Denmark’s health care system has two key features that make it an attractive setting in which to conduct such a study – the first being its universal health care. The second advantage is that the country enacted several health registries in the 1970s and 1980s that enable the collection of more comprehensive data. For example, the Danish National Patient Register is a population-based registry that spans the entire nation, facilitating epidemiological research with what the study’s authors describe as “high generalizability.” Providing additional insights regarding the patient story helps add context to pregnancy and outcomes. Among the data collected on the women studied were demographics, contact information, and abortions, both spontaneous and medically induced. The country uses other databases and registries to capture additional data. For example, the Register of Legally Induced Abortions provides data regarding the context of medically induced abortions. In contrast, the Danish Medical Birth Registry provides context regarding specified variables regarding women’s pregnancies, delivery, and perinatal outcomes. Finally, the population’s education register offers information regarding patients’ educational history.

A key strength of this study is that the long duration of follow-up data from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, along with its comprehensive data collection, eliminates recall bias. Universal access to health care also improves the generalizability of data. A limitation of the study is its lack of data on maternal smoking and its effects on low gestational weights. The study also has some data gaps, including body mass index information missing from a large portion of the cohort. Finally, the sample size of newborns born to mothers who had received DMT therapy within the last 6 months of gestation was too underpowered to stratify based on first on first-line or second-line treatment.

Dr. Magyari served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi, Teva, Roche, Novartis, and Merck. She has also received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme, and has received research support and support for congress participation from Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Roche, Merck, and Novartis. Coauthors disclosed various fees received from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) may not pose a higher risk for complications in pregnant women, according to a new study published online Feb. 3 in Neurology Clinical Practice. While pregnancy and childbirth are not regarded as conditions that engender high-risk pregnancy in the MS population, previous studies evaluating the effects of MS on pregnancy and parturition have yet to fully elucidate some outcomes for pregnant women and their babies in multiple sclerosis.

“Women with multiple sclerosis may be understandably concerned about the risk of pregnancy,” said Melinda Magyari, MD, PhD, a consultant at the University of Copenhagen. “While previous research has shown there is no higher risk of birth defect for babies born to women with MS, we wanted to find out if women with MS are at risk for a variety of pregnancy complications.”

MS is regarded as a progressive, neurological disease mediated by the immune system that demands careful consideration of numerous situations and life changes including family planning. The MS population is overwhelmingly female, as women account for three out of every four cases of MS. The majority of these women range from 20 to 40 years of age at the time of being diagnosed with MS. Despite the unknown risks of pregnancy-related complications and various perinatal complications in this patient population, women who have MS are not discouraged from conceiving.
 

Assessing pregnancy outcomes

This nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study evaluated the pregnancies of 2,930 women with MS between Jan. 1, 1997, and Dec. 31, 2016, registered in the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry. The researchers compared pregnancy-related and prenatal outcomes to a 5% random sample of 56,958 randomly-selected pregnant women from Denmark’s general population who did not have MS. They found no differences in the risks associated with several pregnancy-related complications (e.g., preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, or placental complications), emergency Cesarean section (C-section), instrumental delivery, stillbirth, preterm birth, or congenital malformation. Apgar scores were low in both groups. A composite of various biometrics in newborns such as reflexes, muscle tone, and heart rate immediately following birth, the Apgar score is used to help assess the neonatal health, with a value of less than 7 considered low. Here, preterm birth is defined as delivery occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, and stillbirth describes a fetus born dead after 22 weeks of gestation.

Women in the MS cohort were more likely to have elective C-sections (odds ratio, 2.89 [95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.16]), induced labor (OR, 1.15 [95%CI, 1.01-1.31]) and have babies with low birth weight based on their gestational age (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.04-1.60]). Nearly 30% of babies born in the cohort (n = 851) were born to mothers who had received disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Neonates exposed to DMT weighed an average of 116 g less than babies born to mothers who had not received DMT (3,378 g vs. 3,494 g) with a slightly lower gestational age (39 weeks as opposed to 40 weeks). However, babies born to mothers with MS were less likely to show signs of asphyxia (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97]) than the comparison cohort.

“We found overall, their pregnancies were just as healthy as those of the moms without MS,” Dr. Magyari said.
 

Comprehensive data

Denmark’s health care system has two key features that make it an attractive setting in which to conduct such a study – the first being its universal health care. The second advantage is that the country enacted several health registries in the 1970s and 1980s that enable the collection of more comprehensive data. For example, the Danish National Patient Register is a population-based registry that spans the entire nation, facilitating epidemiological research with what the study’s authors describe as “high generalizability.” Providing additional insights regarding the patient story helps add context to pregnancy and outcomes. Among the data collected on the women studied were demographics, contact information, and abortions, both spontaneous and medically induced. The country uses other databases and registries to capture additional data. For example, the Register of Legally Induced Abortions provides data regarding the context of medically induced abortions. In contrast, the Danish Medical Birth Registry provides context regarding specified variables regarding women’s pregnancies, delivery, and perinatal outcomes. Finally, the population’s education register offers information regarding patients’ educational history.

A key strength of this study is that the long duration of follow-up data from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, along with its comprehensive data collection, eliminates recall bias. Universal access to health care also improves the generalizability of data. A limitation of the study is its lack of data on maternal smoking and its effects on low gestational weights. The study also has some data gaps, including body mass index information missing from a large portion of the cohort. Finally, the sample size of newborns born to mothers who had received DMT therapy within the last 6 months of gestation was too underpowered to stratify based on first on first-line or second-line treatment.

Dr. Magyari served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi, Teva, Roche, Novartis, and Merck. She has also received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme, and has received research support and support for congress participation from Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Roche, Merck, and Novartis. Coauthors disclosed various fees received from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) may not pose a higher risk for complications in pregnant women, according to a new study published online Feb. 3 in Neurology Clinical Practice. While pregnancy and childbirth are not regarded as conditions that engender high-risk pregnancy in the MS population, previous studies evaluating the effects of MS on pregnancy and parturition have yet to fully elucidate some outcomes for pregnant women and their babies in multiple sclerosis.

“Women with multiple sclerosis may be understandably concerned about the risk of pregnancy,” said Melinda Magyari, MD, PhD, a consultant at the University of Copenhagen. “While previous research has shown there is no higher risk of birth defect for babies born to women with MS, we wanted to find out if women with MS are at risk for a variety of pregnancy complications.”

MS is regarded as a progressive, neurological disease mediated by the immune system that demands careful consideration of numerous situations and life changes including family planning. The MS population is overwhelmingly female, as women account for three out of every four cases of MS. The majority of these women range from 20 to 40 years of age at the time of being diagnosed with MS. Despite the unknown risks of pregnancy-related complications and various perinatal complications in this patient population, women who have MS are not discouraged from conceiving.
 

Assessing pregnancy outcomes

This nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study evaluated the pregnancies of 2,930 women with MS between Jan. 1, 1997, and Dec. 31, 2016, registered in the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry. The researchers compared pregnancy-related and prenatal outcomes to a 5% random sample of 56,958 randomly-selected pregnant women from Denmark’s general population who did not have MS. They found no differences in the risks associated with several pregnancy-related complications (e.g., preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, or placental complications), emergency Cesarean section (C-section), instrumental delivery, stillbirth, preterm birth, or congenital malformation. Apgar scores were low in both groups. A composite of various biometrics in newborns such as reflexes, muscle tone, and heart rate immediately following birth, the Apgar score is used to help assess the neonatal health, with a value of less than 7 considered low. Here, preterm birth is defined as delivery occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, and stillbirth describes a fetus born dead after 22 weeks of gestation.

Women in the MS cohort were more likely to have elective C-sections (odds ratio, 2.89 [95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.16]), induced labor (OR, 1.15 [95%CI, 1.01-1.31]) and have babies with low birth weight based on their gestational age (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.04-1.60]). Nearly 30% of babies born in the cohort (n = 851) were born to mothers who had received disease-modifying therapy (DMT). Neonates exposed to DMT weighed an average of 116 g less than babies born to mothers who had not received DMT (3,378 g vs. 3,494 g) with a slightly lower gestational age (39 weeks as opposed to 40 weeks). However, babies born to mothers with MS were less likely to show signs of asphyxia (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97]) than the comparison cohort.

“We found overall, their pregnancies were just as healthy as those of the moms without MS,” Dr. Magyari said.
 

Comprehensive data

Denmark’s health care system has two key features that make it an attractive setting in which to conduct such a study – the first being its universal health care. The second advantage is that the country enacted several health registries in the 1970s and 1980s that enable the collection of more comprehensive data. For example, the Danish National Patient Register is a population-based registry that spans the entire nation, facilitating epidemiological research with what the study’s authors describe as “high generalizability.” Providing additional insights regarding the patient story helps add context to pregnancy and outcomes. Among the data collected on the women studied were demographics, contact information, and abortions, both spontaneous and medically induced. The country uses other databases and registries to capture additional data. For example, the Register of Legally Induced Abortions provides data regarding the context of medically induced abortions. In contrast, the Danish Medical Birth Registry provides context regarding specified variables regarding women’s pregnancies, delivery, and perinatal outcomes. Finally, the population’s education register offers information regarding patients’ educational history.

A key strength of this study is that the long duration of follow-up data from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, along with its comprehensive data collection, eliminates recall bias. Universal access to health care also improves the generalizability of data. A limitation of the study is its lack of data on maternal smoking and its effects on low gestational weights. The study also has some data gaps, including body mass index information missing from a large portion of the cohort. Finally, the sample size of newborns born to mothers who had received DMT therapy within the last 6 months of gestation was too underpowered to stratify based on first on first-line or second-line treatment.

Dr. Magyari served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Sanofi, Teva, Roche, Novartis, and Merck. She has also received honoraria for lecturing from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme, and has received research support and support for congress participation from Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, Roche, Merck, and Novartis. Coauthors disclosed various fees received from Merck, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the review period for aducanumab, the investigational amyloid-clearing treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, by 3 months, the drug’s manufacturers have announced. The updated prescription drug user fee act (PDUFA) action date has been pushed forward from March 7 to June 7, 2021.

“As part of the ongoing review, Biogen submitted a response to an information request by the FDA, including additional analyses and clinical data, which the FDA considered a major amendment to the application that will require additional time for review,” Biogen and Eisai said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with the FDA as it completes its review of the aducanumab application. We want to thank the FDA for its continued diligence during the review,” said Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos.

Biogen submitted the aducanumab application for approval to the FDA in July 2020. The FDA accepted it in August and granted priority review.

Aducanumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeting beta-amyloid (Abeta). If approved, it would be the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

However, the road to approval has been bumpy. In November, despite high expectations and pleas from patients, caregivers, and advocacy groups, an FDA advisory panel declined to recommend approval of aducanumab.

As previously reported by this news organization, members of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee determined that results from Biogen’s one large positive trial did not provide strong enough evidence of efficacy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the review period for aducanumab, the investigational amyloid-clearing treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, by 3 months, the drug’s manufacturers have announced. The updated prescription drug user fee act (PDUFA) action date has been pushed forward from March 7 to June 7, 2021.

“As part of the ongoing review, Biogen submitted a response to an information request by the FDA, including additional analyses and clinical data, which the FDA considered a major amendment to the application that will require additional time for review,” Biogen and Eisai said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with the FDA as it completes its review of the aducanumab application. We want to thank the FDA for its continued diligence during the review,” said Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos.

Biogen submitted the aducanumab application for approval to the FDA in July 2020. The FDA accepted it in August and granted priority review.

Aducanumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeting beta-amyloid (Abeta). If approved, it would be the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

However, the road to approval has been bumpy. In November, despite high expectations and pleas from patients, caregivers, and advocacy groups, an FDA advisory panel declined to recommend approval of aducanumab.

As previously reported by this news organization, members of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee determined that results from Biogen’s one large positive trial did not provide strong enough evidence of efficacy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the review period for aducanumab, the investigational amyloid-clearing treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, by 3 months, the drug’s manufacturers have announced. The updated prescription drug user fee act (PDUFA) action date has been pushed forward from March 7 to June 7, 2021.

“As part of the ongoing review, Biogen submitted a response to an information request by the FDA, including additional analyses and clinical data, which the FDA considered a major amendment to the application that will require additional time for review,” Biogen and Eisai said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with the FDA as it completes its review of the aducanumab application. We want to thank the FDA for its continued diligence during the review,” said Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos.

Biogen submitted the aducanumab application for approval to the FDA in July 2020. The FDA accepted it in August and granted priority review.

Aducanumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeting beta-amyloid (Abeta). If approved, it would be the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

However, the road to approval has been bumpy. In November, despite high expectations and pleas from patients, caregivers, and advocacy groups, an FDA advisory panel declined to recommend approval of aducanumab.

As previously reported by this news organization, members of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee determined that results from Biogen’s one large positive trial did not provide strong enough evidence of efficacy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intramuscular (IM) administration of peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy, Biogen) for patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The new IM administration offers people living with relapsing MS the well-characterized efficacy and safety of Plegridy with the potential for significantly reduced injection site reactions,” Biogen said in a news release announcing the FDA action.

Plegridy is a pegylated version of interferon beta-1a, which prolongs the circulation time of the molecule in the body by increasing its size. The process extends the drug’s half-life, allowing for a less-frequent dosing schedule.

Peginterferon beta-1a administered subcutaneously was first approved by the FDA in 2014 based on data showing it significantly reduces MS relapses, disability progression, and brain lesions.

The FDA approved IM administration for peginterferon beta-1a based on data evaluating bioequivalence and adverse reactions associated with IM administration compared with subcutaneous (SC) administration in healthy volunteers.

Bioequivalence of the IM and SC dosing regimens was confirmed and volunteers receiving the drug through IM administration experienced fewer injection site reactions relative to those receiving SC administration (14.4% vs. 32.1%), the company said.

The overall safety profiles of IM and SC administration were generally similar, with no new safety signals.

The European Commission allowed marketing authorization for IM administration of peginterferon beta-1a in December 2020.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intramuscular (IM) administration of peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy, Biogen) for patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The new IM administration offers people living with relapsing MS the well-characterized efficacy and safety of Plegridy with the potential for significantly reduced injection site reactions,” Biogen said in a news release announcing the FDA action.

Plegridy is a pegylated version of interferon beta-1a, which prolongs the circulation time of the molecule in the body by increasing its size. The process extends the drug’s half-life, allowing for a less-frequent dosing schedule.

Peginterferon beta-1a administered subcutaneously was first approved by the FDA in 2014 based on data showing it significantly reduces MS relapses, disability progression, and brain lesions.

The FDA approved IM administration for peginterferon beta-1a based on data evaluating bioequivalence and adverse reactions associated with IM administration compared with subcutaneous (SC) administration in healthy volunteers.

Bioequivalence of the IM and SC dosing regimens was confirmed and volunteers receiving the drug through IM administration experienced fewer injection site reactions relative to those receiving SC administration (14.4% vs. 32.1%), the company said.

The overall safety profiles of IM and SC administration were generally similar, with no new safety signals.

The European Commission allowed marketing authorization for IM administration of peginterferon beta-1a in December 2020.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intramuscular (IM) administration of peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy, Biogen) for patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The new IM administration offers people living with relapsing MS the well-characterized efficacy and safety of Plegridy with the potential for significantly reduced injection site reactions,” Biogen said in a news release announcing the FDA action.

Plegridy is a pegylated version of interferon beta-1a, which prolongs the circulation time of the molecule in the body by increasing its size. The process extends the drug’s half-life, allowing for a less-frequent dosing schedule.

Peginterferon beta-1a administered subcutaneously was first approved by the FDA in 2014 based on data showing it significantly reduces MS relapses, disability progression, and brain lesions.

The FDA approved IM administration for peginterferon beta-1a based on data evaluating bioequivalence and adverse reactions associated with IM administration compared with subcutaneous (SC) administration in healthy volunteers.

Bioequivalence of the IM and SC dosing regimens was confirmed and volunteers receiving the drug through IM administration experienced fewer injection site reactions relative to those receiving SC administration (14.4% vs. 32.1%), the company said.

The overall safety profiles of IM and SC administration were generally similar, with no new safety signals.

The European Commission allowed marketing authorization for IM administration of peginterferon beta-1a in December 2020.

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

Adverse cognitive and psychiatric effects seen associated with the investigational Alzheimer’s drug atabecestat were reversed within 6 months of treatment cessation, according to follow-up results from a truncated clinical trial.

A blinded, placebo-controlled, manufacturer-sponsored trial that had randomized 557 patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease to 25 mg daily oral atabecestat, 5 mg atabecestat, or placebo, was halted in 2018 over concerns about liver toxicity. The main outcome measure of the trial was change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, while two other scales were used to assess cognitive function and neuropsychological status.

A preliminary analysis found the higher dose of the atabecestat to significantly worsen subjects’ cognition starting at around 3 months of treatment, compared with placebo. Treatment with atabecestat was also seen associated with higher incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events, including anxiety and depression.

In their follow-up study published Jan. 19, 2021 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4857), Reisa Sperling, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported that the cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse effects seen linked to atabecestat treatment reverted to baseline levels within 6 months of halting treatment. Most of the worsening seen in the study was associated with episodic memory tasks, including “list learning, story memory, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall,” Dr. Sperling and colleagues found.

Atabecestat was also associated with “dose-related and duration-related decreases in whole-brain volume, compared with placebo treatment,” the investigators reported. Brain volume loss has been seen in trials of other beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors and shown with one, umibecestat, to be reversible after stopping treatment.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues acknowledged as a major limitation of their study that just over a third of the cohort received another cognitive composite score after baseline. “The observation that cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric-related [adverse events] recovered following discontinuation of atabecestat is encouraging but needs replication, given that the observation period after stopping treatment was variable and not preplanned,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. After a median exposure of 21 weeks to the study drug or placebo, subjects were followed off treatment for a median 15 weeks.
 

Questions surround BACE inhibitors

Development of atabecestat has been discontinued along with others in its class of agents, known as BACE inhibitors, which target an enzyme that initiates production of amyloid-beta, the plaque-forming peptide that is considered a driver of Alzheimer’s disease. In the past few years a number of BACE inhibitors have been shown in trials to worsen cognition in a dose-dependent way, compared with placebo. The reasons for these effects are still unknown.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues concluded that, if BACE investigators like atabecestat are to be studied anew, it must be at low doses, with more modest enzyme inhibition, and alongside careful safety and cognitive monitoring.

While no BACE inhibitor is currently in the pipeline for Alzheimer’s – trials of these agents have been stopped for futility or toxicity –Paul Aisen, MD of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study, commented that it was important that clinical investigation of BACE inhibitors continue. 

“This drug class is optimal to correct the metabolic dysregulation that is likely a primary root cause” of Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Aisen said in an interview. “Evidence from trials such as this suggest that the cognitive toxicity of BACE inhibitors is dose related, nonprogressive, and reversible. We should now focus on establishing the safety of relatively low-dose BACE inhibition so that such regimens can be tested in AD trials.”
 

Research should continue

Robert Vassar, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not a coauthor on the study, also expressed a desire for BACE inhibitor research to continue.

“It is my view that the cognitive worsening of atabecestat and the other BACE inhibitors was caused by overinhibition of the enzyme related to functions of certain BACE substrates in the brain,” Dr. Vassar commented. “A major question is whether a lower dose of BACE inhibitor – achieving about 30% inhibition – could be safe and lower amyloid-beta enough to delay onset in people still without symptoms. The good news of this study is that the atabecestat-related cognitive worsening is reversible, leaving open the possibility of low-dose prevention trials.”

Dr. Vassar noted that, with both doses of atabecestat, Dr. Sperling and colleagues did not see changes in neurofilament light or total tau, two biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but did report decreases in phosphorylated tau (p181 tau), a marker of disease progression, compared with placebo.

“This indicates that atabecestat did not cause neurodegeneration and in fact moved p181 tau in the beneficial direction for Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps if it were not for the liver toxicity, the trial may have been completed and other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers may have changed in the beneficial direction as well,” Dr. Vassar said.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study was sponsored by Janssen, the manufacturer of atabecestat. Dr. Sperling disclosed receiving research funding from Janssen and other drug makers, while nearly all the study’s coauthors reported being directly employed by the sponsor or receiving industry funding. Dr. Aisen disclosed personal fees from several manufacturers and past fees from the sponsor. Dr. Vassar disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with biotechnology companies that did not include this study’s sponsor.

Adverse cognitive and psychiatric effects seen associated with the investigational Alzheimer’s drug atabecestat were reversed within 6 months of treatment cessation, according to follow-up results from a truncated clinical trial.

A blinded, placebo-controlled, manufacturer-sponsored trial that had randomized 557 patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease to 25 mg daily oral atabecestat, 5 mg atabecestat, or placebo, was halted in 2018 over concerns about liver toxicity. The main outcome measure of the trial was change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, while two other scales were used to assess cognitive function and neuropsychological status.

A preliminary analysis found the higher dose of the atabecestat to significantly worsen subjects’ cognition starting at around 3 months of treatment, compared with placebo. Treatment with atabecestat was also seen associated with higher incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events, including anxiety and depression.

In their follow-up study published Jan. 19, 2021 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4857), Reisa Sperling, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported that the cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse effects seen linked to atabecestat treatment reverted to baseline levels within 6 months of halting treatment. Most of the worsening seen in the study was associated with episodic memory tasks, including “list learning, story memory, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall,” Dr. Sperling and colleagues found.

Atabecestat was also associated with “dose-related and duration-related decreases in whole-brain volume, compared with placebo treatment,” the investigators reported. Brain volume loss has been seen in trials of other beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors and shown with one, umibecestat, to be reversible after stopping treatment.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues acknowledged as a major limitation of their study that just over a third of the cohort received another cognitive composite score after baseline. “The observation that cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric-related [adverse events] recovered following discontinuation of atabecestat is encouraging but needs replication, given that the observation period after stopping treatment was variable and not preplanned,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. After a median exposure of 21 weeks to the study drug or placebo, subjects were followed off treatment for a median 15 weeks.
 

Questions surround BACE inhibitors

Development of atabecestat has been discontinued along with others in its class of agents, known as BACE inhibitors, which target an enzyme that initiates production of amyloid-beta, the plaque-forming peptide that is considered a driver of Alzheimer’s disease. In the past few years a number of BACE inhibitors have been shown in trials to worsen cognition in a dose-dependent way, compared with placebo. The reasons for these effects are still unknown.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues concluded that, if BACE investigators like atabecestat are to be studied anew, it must be at low doses, with more modest enzyme inhibition, and alongside careful safety and cognitive monitoring.

While no BACE inhibitor is currently in the pipeline for Alzheimer’s – trials of these agents have been stopped for futility or toxicity –Paul Aisen, MD of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study, commented that it was important that clinical investigation of BACE inhibitors continue. 

“This drug class is optimal to correct the metabolic dysregulation that is likely a primary root cause” of Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Aisen said in an interview. “Evidence from trials such as this suggest that the cognitive toxicity of BACE inhibitors is dose related, nonprogressive, and reversible. We should now focus on establishing the safety of relatively low-dose BACE inhibition so that such regimens can be tested in AD trials.”
 

Research should continue

Robert Vassar, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not a coauthor on the study, also expressed a desire for BACE inhibitor research to continue.

“It is my view that the cognitive worsening of atabecestat and the other BACE inhibitors was caused by overinhibition of the enzyme related to functions of certain BACE substrates in the brain,” Dr. Vassar commented. “A major question is whether a lower dose of BACE inhibitor – achieving about 30% inhibition – could be safe and lower amyloid-beta enough to delay onset in people still without symptoms. The good news of this study is that the atabecestat-related cognitive worsening is reversible, leaving open the possibility of low-dose prevention trials.”

Dr. Vassar noted that, with both doses of atabecestat, Dr. Sperling and colleagues did not see changes in neurofilament light or total tau, two biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but did report decreases in phosphorylated tau (p181 tau), a marker of disease progression, compared with placebo.

“This indicates that atabecestat did not cause neurodegeneration and in fact moved p181 tau in the beneficial direction for Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps if it were not for the liver toxicity, the trial may have been completed and other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers may have changed in the beneficial direction as well,” Dr. Vassar said.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study was sponsored by Janssen, the manufacturer of atabecestat. Dr. Sperling disclosed receiving research funding from Janssen and other drug makers, while nearly all the study’s coauthors reported being directly employed by the sponsor or receiving industry funding. Dr. Aisen disclosed personal fees from several manufacturers and past fees from the sponsor. Dr. Vassar disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with biotechnology companies that did not include this study’s sponsor.

Adverse cognitive and psychiatric effects seen associated with the investigational Alzheimer’s drug atabecestat were reversed within 6 months of treatment cessation, according to follow-up results from a truncated clinical trial.

A blinded, placebo-controlled, manufacturer-sponsored trial that had randomized 557 patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease to 25 mg daily oral atabecestat, 5 mg atabecestat, or placebo, was halted in 2018 over concerns about liver toxicity. The main outcome measure of the trial was change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, while two other scales were used to assess cognitive function and neuropsychological status.

A preliminary analysis found the higher dose of the atabecestat to significantly worsen subjects’ cognition starting at around 3 months of treatment, compared with placebo. Treatment with atabecestat was also seen associated with higher incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events, including anxiety and depression.

In their follow-up study published Jan. 19, 2021 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4857), Reisa Sperling, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported that the cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse effects seen linked to atabecestat treatment reverted to baseline levels within 6 months of halting treatment. Most of the worsening seen in the study was associated with episodic memory tasks, including “list learning, story memory, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall,” Dr. Sperling and colleagues found.

Atabecestat was also associated with “dose-related and duration-related decreases in whole-brain volume, compared with placebo treatment,” the investigators reported. Brain volume loss has been seen in trials of other beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors and shown with one, umibecestat, to be reversible after stopping treatment.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues acknowledged as a major limitation of their study that just over a third of the cohort received another cognitive composite score after baseline. “The observation that cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric-related [adverse events] recovered following discontinuation of atabecestat is encouraging but needs replication, given that the observation period after stopping treatment was variable and not preplanned,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. After a median exposure of 21 weeks to the study drug or placebo, subjects were followed off treatment for a median 15 weeks.
 

Questions surround BACE inhibitors

Development of atabecestat has been discontinued along with others in its class of agents, known as BACE inhibitors, which target an enzyme that initiates production of amyloid-beta, the plaque-forming peptide that is considered a driver of Alzheimer’s disease. In the past few years a number of BACE inhibitors have been shown in trials to worsen cognition in a dose-dependent way, compared with placebo. The reasons for these effects are still unknown.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues concluded that, if BACE investigators like atabecestat are to be studied anew, it must be at low doses, with more modest enzyme inhibition, and alongside careful safety and cognitive monitoring.

While no BACE inhibitor is currently in the pipeline for Alzheimer’s – trials of these agents have been stopped for futility or toxicity –Paul Aisen, MD of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study, commented that it was important that clinical investigation of BACE inhibitors continue. 

“This drug class is optimal to correct the metabolic dysregulation that is likely a primary root cause” of Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Aisen said in an interview. “Evidence from trials such as this suggest that the cognitive toxicity of BACE inhibitors is dose related, nonprogressive, and reversible. We should now focus on establishing the safety of relatively low-dose BACE inhibition so that such regimens can be tested in AD trials.”
 

Research should continue

Robert Vassar, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not a coauthor on the study, also expressed a desire for BACE inhibitor research to continue.

“It is my view that the cognitive worsening of atabecestat and the other BACE inhibitors was caused by overinhibition of the enzyme related to functions of certain BACE substrates in the brain,” Dr. Vassar commented. “A major question is whether a lower dose of BACE inhibitor – achieving about 30% inhibition – could be safe and lower amyloid-beta enough to delay onset in people still without symptoms. The good news of this study is that the atabecestat-related cognitive worsening is reversible, leaving open the possibility of low-dose prevention trials.”

Dr. Vassar noted that, with both doses of atabecestat, Dr. Sperling and colleagues did not see changes in neurofilament light or total tau, two biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but did report decreases in phosphorylated tau (p181 tau), a marker of disease progression, compared with placebo.

“This indicates that atabecestat did not cause neurodegeneration and in fact moved p181 tau in the beneficial direction for Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps if it were not for the liver toxicity, the trial may have been completed and other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers may have changed in the beneficial direction as well,” Dr. Vassar said.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study was sponsored by Janssen, the manufacturer of atabecestat. Dr. Sperling disclosed receiving research funding from Janssen and other drug makers, while nearly all the study’s coauthors reported being directly employed by the sponsor or receiving industry funding. Dr. Aisen disclosed personal fees from several manufacturers and past fees from the sponsor. Dr. Vassar disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with biotechnology companies that did not include this study’s sponsor.

Afternoon napping was associated with better cognition in an older Chinese population, according to a new study in General Psychiatry.

The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.

“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”

The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.

The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).

Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).

Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.

Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.

The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.

“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.

The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).

The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”

Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.

Afternoon napping was associated with better cognition in an older Chinese population, according to a new study in General Psychiatry.

The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.

“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”

The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.

The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).

Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).

Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.

Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.

The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.

“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.

The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).

The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”

Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.

Afternoon napping was associated with better cognition in an older Chinese population, according to a new study in General Psychiatry.

The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.

“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”

The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.

The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).

Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).

Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.

Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.

The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.

“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.

The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).

The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”

Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.