MDedge Neurology

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant proportion of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and dysautonomia may have potentially treatable underlying autoimmune-associated small-fiber polyneuropathy (aaSFPN), pilot data suggest.

The findings, from a single-site study of 61 patients with ME/CFS, were presented August 21 at the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by Ryan Whelan, BS, a research assistant at Simmaron Research Institute, Incline Village, Nevada.

Recent evidence suggests an autoimmune etiology for some patients with ME/CFS, which is defined as experiencing for a period of at least 6 months profound, unexplained fatigue, postexertional malaise, and unrefreshing sleep, as well as cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance (OI).

OI is part of a spectrum of autonomic dysfunction commonly seen in ME/CFS patients, which may also include postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), peripheral temperature dysregulation and light sensitivity, neuropathic pain, and gastrointestinal complaints. Many of these symptoms overlap those reported by patients with aaSFPN, a common but underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of peripheral autonomic nerve fibers, Whelan explained.

Findings from the current study show that in more than half of ME/CFS patients, levels of at least one autoantibody were elevated. A majority had comorbid POTS or OI, and over a third had biopsy-confirmed aaSFPN.

“Given the overlap of symptoms and common etiological basis, it may be important to identify ME/CFS patients who present with comorbid aaSFPN, as it has been shown that immune modulatory agents, including intravenous gamma globulin [IVIG], reduce the autonomic symptom burden in aaSFPN patients,” Whelan said.

He noted that Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues previously linked aaSFPN with fibromyalgia. In addition, they’ve found a connection between small-fiber dysfunction and postexertional malaise, which is a hallmark ME/CFS symptom.

Asked to comment on Whelan’s presentation, IACFSME co-president Lily Chu, MD, told Medscape Medical News that the new findings are “valuable, because ME/CFS has always been looked upon as just subjective symptoms. When people have laboratory abnormalities, it can be due to a bunch of other causes, but...here’s pathology, here’s a biopsy of actual damage. It’s not just a transient finding. You can actually see it. ... It’s a solid concrete piece of evidence vs something that can fluctuate.”

Autoantibodies, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

Whelan and colleagues conducted an extensive analysis of medical records of 364 patients with ME/CFS (72% female) to identify potential aaSFPN comorbidity. Such identifications were made on the basis of progress notes documenting autonomic dysfunction, laboratory results for serum autoantibodies, and questionnaire symptom self-reports.

They identified 61 patients as possibly having comorbid aaSFPN. Of those, 52% tested positive for at least 1 of 4 autoantibodies, including antimuscarinic cholinergic receptor 4 (47%), anti-beta-2 adrenergic (27%), antimuscarinic cholinergic 3 (25%), and anti-beta-1 adrenergic (13%). These autoantibodies were linked to ME/CFS in a recent Swedish cohort study.

“Evidence supports that these autoantibodies may bind to receptor sites, blocking ligands from reaching these receptors. Disturbances of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors by these autoantibodies may contribute to symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS,” Whelan said.

Although 22% of patients in the study group had POTS and 59% had OI, the authors found no correlation between autoantibody levels and either OI or POTS. However, 38% were confirmed to have small-fiber polyneuropathy on skin biopsy, and the vast majority of those patients (93%) had either POTS or OI.

IVIG May Be a Potential Treatment

Whelan notes that some data suggest that IVIG might help patients with small-fiber neuropathy, including those with autoimmunity.

In addition, he described anecdotal data from a single patient with ME/CFS who had neuropathic symptoms. The patient was treated at Simmaron. The 56-year-old received two IVIG infusions given 6 months apart. The patient experienced a dramatic reduction in levels of all four of the relevant autoantibodies and favorable symptom reduction, as shown in clinician follow-up records. “With the success of this case study, we intend to further evaluate IVIG as a potential treatment in ME/CFS patients. With this research, we hope to identify a subset of ME/CFS patients who will respond favorably to IVIG,” Whelan concluded.

Regarding use of IVIG, Chu commented, “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it seems to help certain conditions.” She pointed to another recent small study that reported clinical improvement in patients with ME/CFS through a different approach, immunoadsorption, for reducing the autoantibody levels.

Overall, Chu said, this line of research “is important because it shows there’s some type of abnormal biomarker for ME/CFS. And, it may lay a path toward understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and why people have certain symptoms, and could be used to target therapies. ... It’s intriguing.”

Whelan and Chu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant proportion of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and dysautonomia may have potentially treatable underlying autoimmune-associated small-fiber polyneuropathy (aaSFPN), pilot data suggest.

The findings, from a single-site study of 61 patients with ME/CFS, were presented August 21 at the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by Ryan Whelan, BS, a research assistant at Simmaron Research Institute, Incline Village, Nevada.

Recent evidence suggests an autoimmune etiology for some patients with ME/CFS, which is defined as experiencing for a period of at least 6 months profound, unexplained fatigue, postexertional malaise, and unrefreshing sleep, as well as cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance (OI).

OI is part of a spectrum of autonomic dysfunction commonly seen in ME/CFS patients, which may also include postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), peripheral temperature dysregulation and light sensitivity, neuropathic pain, and gastrointestinal complaints. Many of these symptoms overlap those reported by patients with aaSFPN, a common but underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of peripheral autonomic nerve fibers, Whelan explained.

Findings from the current study show that in more than half of ME/CFS patients, levels of at least one autoantibody were elevated. A majority had comorbid POTS or OI, and over a third had biopsy-confirmed aaSFPN.

“Given the overlap of symptoms and common etiological basis, it may be important to identify ME/CFS patients who present with comorbid aaSFPN, as it has been shown that immune modulatory agents, including intravenous gamma globulin [IVIG], reduce the autonomic symptom burden in aaSFPN patients,” Whelan said.

He noted that Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues previously linked aaSFPN with fibromyalgia. In addition, they’ve found a connection between small-fiber dysfunction and postexertional malaise, which is a hallmark ME/CFS symptom.

Asked to comment on Whelan’s presentation, IACFSME co-president Lily Chu, MD, told Medscape Medical News that the new findings are “valuable, because ME/CFS has always been looked upon as just subjective symptoms. When people have laboratory abnormalities, it can be due to a bunch of other causes, but...here’s pathology, here’s a biopsy of actual damage. It’s not just a transient finding. You can actually see it. ... It’s a solid concrete piece of evidence vs something that can fluctuate.”

Autoantibodies, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

Whelan and colleagues conducted an extensive analysis of medical records of 364 patients with ME/CFS (72% female) to identify potential aaSFPN comorbidity. Such identifications were made on the basis of progress notes documenting autonomic dysfunction, laboratory results for serum autoantibodies, and questionnaire symptom self-reports.

They identified 61 patients as possibly having comorbid aaSFPN. Of those, 52% tested positive for at least 1 of 4 autoantibodies, including antimuscarinic cholinergic receptor 4 (47%), anti-beta-2 adrenergic (27%), antimuscarinic cholinergic 3 (25%), and anti-beta-1 adrenergic (13%). These autoantibodies were linked to ME/CFS in a recent Swedish cohort study.

“Evidence supports that these autoantibodies may bind to receptor sites, blocking ligands from reaching these receptors. Disturbances of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors by these autoantibodies may contribute to symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS,” Whelan said.

Although 22% of patients in the study group had POTS and 59% had OI, the authors found no correlation between autoantibody levels and either OI or POTS. However, 38% were confirmed to have small-fiber polyneuropathy on skin biopsy, and the vast majority of those patients (93%) had either POTS or OI.

IVIG May Be a Potential Treatment

Whelan notes that some data suggest that IVIG might help patients with small-fiber neuropathy, including those with autoimmunity.

In addition, he described anecdotal data from a single patient with ME/CFS who had neuropathic symptoms. The patient was treated at Simmaron. The 56-year-old received two IVIG infusions given 6 months apart. The patient experienced a dramatic reduction in levels of all four of the relevant autoantibodies and favorable symptom reduction, as shown in clinician follow-up records. “With the success of this case study, we intend to further evaluate IVIG as a potential treatment in ME/CFS patients. With this research, we hope to identify a subset of ME/CFS patients who will respond favorably to IVIG,” Whelan concluded.

Regarding use of IVIG, Chu commented, “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it seems to help certain conditions.” She pointed to another recent small study that reported clinical improvement in patients with ME/CFS through a different approach, immunoadsorption, for reducing the autoantibody levels.

Overall, Chu said, this line of research “is important because it shows there’s some type of abnormal biomarker for ME/CFS. And, it may lay a path toward understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and why people have certain symptoms, and could be used to target therapies. ... It’s intriguing.”

Whelan and Chu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant proportion of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and dysautonomia may have potentially treatable underlying autoimmune-associated small-fiber polyneuropathy (aaSFPN), pilot data suggest.

The findings, from a single-site study of 61 patients with ME/CFS, were presented August 21 at the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by Ryan Whelan, BS, a research assistant at Simmaron Research Institute, Incline Village, Nevada.

Recent evidence suggests an autoimmune etiology for some patients with ME/CFS, which is defined as experiencing for a period of at least 6 months profound, unexplained fatigue, postexertional malaise, and unrefreshing sleep, as well as cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance (OI).

OI is part of a spectrum of autonomic dysfunction commonly seen in ME/CFS patients, which may also include postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), peripheral temperature dysregulation and light sensitivity, neuropathic pain, and gastrointestinal complaints. Many of these symptoms overlap those reported by patients with aaSFPN, a common but underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of peripheral autonomic nerve fibers, Whelan explained.

Findings from the current study show that in more than half of ME/CFS patients, levels of at least one autoantibody were elevated. A majority had comorbid POTS or OI, and over a third had biopsy-confirmed aaSFPN.

“Given the overlap of symptoms and common etiological basis, it may be important to identify ME/CFS patients who present with comorbid aaSFPN, as it has been shown that immune modulatory agents, including intravenous gamma globulin [IVIG], reduce the autonomic symptom burden in aaSFPN patients,” Whelan said.

He noted that Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues previously linked aaSFPN with fibromyalgia. In addition, they’ve found a connection between small-fiber dysfunction and postexertional malaise, which is a hallmark ME/CFS symptom.

Asked to comment on Whelan’s presentation, IACFSME co-president Lily Chu, MD, told Medscape Medical News that the new findings are “valuable, because ME/CFS has always been looked upon as just subjective symptoms. When people have laboratory abnormalities, it can be due to a bunch of other causes, but...here’s pathology, here’s a biopsy of actual damage. It’s not just a transient finding. You can actually see it. ... It’s a solid concrete piece of evidence vs something that can fluctuate.”

Autoantibodies, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

Whelan and colleagues conducted an extensive analysis of medical records of 364 patients with ME/CFS (72% female) to identify potential aaSFPN comorbidity. Such identifications were made on the basis of progress notes documenting autonomic dysfunction, laboratory results for serum autoantibodies, and questionnaire symptom self-reports.

They identified 61 patients as possibly having comorbid aaSFPN. Of those, 52% tested positive for at least 1 of 4 autoantibodies, including antimuscarinic cholinergic receptor 4 (47%), anti-beta-2 adrenergic (27%), antimuscarinic cholinergic 3 (25%), and anti-beta-1 adrenergic (13%). These autoantibodies were linked to ME/CFS in a recent Swedish cohort study.

“Evidence supports that these autoantibodies may bind to receptor sites, blocking ligands from reaching these receptors. Disturbances of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors by these autoantibodies may contribute to symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS,” Whelan said.

Although 22% of patients in the study group had POTS and 59% had OI, the authors found no correlation between autoantibody levels and either OI or POTS. However, 38% were confirmed to have small-fiber polyneuropathy on skin biopsy, and the vast majority of those patients (93%) had either POTS or OI.

IVIG May Be a Potential Treatment

Whelan notes that some data suggest that IVIG might help patients with small-fiber neuropathy, including those with autoimmunity.

In addition, he described anecdotal data from a single patient with ME/CFS who had neuropathic symptoms. The patient was treated at Simmaron. The 56-year-old received two IVIG infusions given 6 months apart. The patient experienced a dramatic reduction in levels of all four of the relevant autoantibodies and favorable symptom reduction, as shown in clinician follow-up records. “With the success of this case study, we intend to further evaluate IVIG as a potential treatment in ME/CFS patients. With this research, we hope to identify a subset of ME/CFS patients who will respond favorably to IVIG,” Whelan concluded.

Regarding use of IVIG, Chu commented, “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it seems to help certain conditions.” She pointed to another recent small study that reported clinical improvement in patients with ME/CFS through a different approach, immunoadsorption, for reducing the autoantibody levels.

Overall, Chu said, this line of research “is important because it shows there’s some type of abnormal biomarker for ME/CFS. And, it may lay a path toward understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and why people have certain symptoms, and could be used to target therapies. ... It’s intriguing.”

Whelan and Chu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Self-employed physicians have the highest salaries, largest homes, and greatest wealth – yet they feel the least fairly compensated, according to an analysis of data from over 17,000 physicians.

A new examination of survey responses from the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which included information about income, job satisfaction, and more, compared responses from self-employed physicians, independent contractors, and employed physicians.

Income and wealth, benefits, and job satisfaction were compared. From the results of the questionnaire, self-employed physicians stand out among their peers across all categories: They enjoy greater income, wealth, and benefits and appear to be more satisfied by their choice of practice.

“The survey confirms that self-employed is the most satisfying, although the trend in health care is to take employed positions,” said Robert Scroggins, JD, CPA, certified health care business consultant with ScrogginsGreer, Cincinnati. “Doctors who become employees primarily do that to escape the management responsibilities for the practice. It seems to be more a decision to get away from something than to go toward something.”
 

The financial and work picture for self-employed physicians

Self-employed physicians reported the largest salaries for 2019 (average, $360,752), followed by independent contractors ($336,005). Employees reported the lowest average salary ($297,332).

The largest percentage of self-employed physicians (46%) work in an office-based group practice, followed by those in office-based solo practices (30%). Almost two-thirds of self-employed respondents are owners and 37% are partners.

Self-employed physicians are more likely to be older than 45 years; 79% fall into that age bracket, compared with 57% of employees and 70% of independent contractors.

Self-employed physicians reported the highest levels of wealth among their peers. About 44% of self-employed respondents declared a net wealth of over $2 million, compared with 25% of employees. Only 6% of contractors and employed physicians reported a net wealth of over $5 million, compared with 13% of self-employed physicians.

Self-employed physicians also managed their personal expenses slightly differently. They were more likely to pool their income with their spouse in a common account used for bills and expenses, regardless of how much they each earned (63% of self-employed respondents, compared with 58% of employees and 50% of independent contractors).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-employed physicians also reported having the largest homes, with an average square footage of 3,629 square feet, compared with 3,023 square feet for employees and 2,984 square feet for independent contractors. Self-employed physicians’ mortgages (average, $240,389) were similar to those of employed physicians’ mortgages but were higher than those of independent contractors’ mortgages (average, $213,740).

Self-employed physicians were also most likely to highly appraise their own performance: Half of all self-employed respondents felt “very satisfied” with their job performance, compared with 40% of employees and 44% of independent contractors.

When asked what they consider to be the most rewarding aspect of their job, self-employed physicians were more likely to choose gratitude and patient relationships than their peers (32%, compared with 26% of employees and 19% of independent contractors).

Despite their higher net wealth and larger salaries, self-employed physicians were least likely to feel fairly compensated; 49% of self-employed physicians said they did not feel fairly compensated for their work, compared with 40% of employees and 40% of independent contractors.

“Self-employed physicians may be better compensated than others of the same specialty who are employees, so some of that may be perception,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Or they feel they should be compensated to a far greater degree than those who are employed.”

Self-employed physicians were also more likely to respond that they would choose the same practice setting again, though across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for employed physicians

About a third (32%) of employed physician respondents work in hospitals; 28% work in private practices.

Employed physicians were most likely to report a salary increase from 2018 to 2019: 74%, compared with 45% of self-employed and 52% of independent contractors.

As for declines in income, self-employed physicians and independent contractors suffered a comparable loss, with 13% and 12% of them, respectively, reporting salary cuts greater than 10%. Decreases of up to 10% were felt mostly by the self-employed, with 17% experiencing such cuts, compared with 7% of employees and 10% of independent contractors.

In contrast, employees were the least likely of the three categories to have incurred large financial losses over the past year: 77% of employed respondents indicated that they had not experienced any significant financial losses in the past year, compared with 63% of self-employed physicians and 63% of independent contractors. They were also least likely to have made any investments at all over the past year – 21% of employees reported having made none at all in 2019, compared to 11% of self-employed physicians and 16% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for independent contractors

Just over half (52%) of all independent contractors who responded to our questionnaire work in hospitals, 15% work in group practices, 9% work in outpatient clinics, and just 2% work in solo practices.

Independent contractors were less likely than their peers to have received employment benefits such as health insurance, malpractice coverage, and paid time off. They were also less likely to be saving for retirement. Almost half (45%) of independent contractors said they received no employment benefits at all, compared to 20% of self-employed physicians and just 8% of employees.

What’s more, 27% of independent contractors do not currently put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred college savings account on a regular basis, compared with 16% of self-employed physicians and 8% of employees. Similarly, they were less likely to put money into a taxable savings account (39% responded that they do not, compared with 32% of self-employed physicians and 27% of employees).

“Net worth and retirement funding findings do line up with what I’ve observed,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Those who have independent practices as opposed to working for a hospital do tend to more heavily fund retirement plan accounts, which is typically the biggest driver of building net worth.”

Despite the lack of retirement planning, independent contractors were more likely than their peers to derive satisfaction from making money at a job they like (18%, compared with 12% of employees and 11% of self-employed physicians). They’re also far more likely to be in emergency medicine (22% of independent contractors, compared with 3% of self-employed and 5% of employees) or psychiatry (11% of independent contractors, compared with 5% of self-employed and 6% of employees).

Among the three categories of physicians, independent contractors were least likely to say that they would choose the same practice setting again. Across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.

Physicians who are considering leaving their own practice for a hospital setting should do so with caution and fully understand what they are getting into, said Mr. Scroggins. “If they’re just looking at compensation, they also should be looking very carefully at retirement plan benefits. If that’s their main method of saving and building net worth, then that’s a dramatic difference.”

And of course, there’s always the intangible value of feeling connected to a practice and its patients: “Physicians got into this line of work to treat patients and help people become healthier, and in hospitals they end up being more disconnected from their patients,” Mr. Scroggins said. “That’s a big factor as well.”

Editor’s note: Only differences that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level between categories of employment have been included. Of the 13,893 responses included in this analysis, 3,860 physicians identified as self-employed, 9,262 as employees, and 772 as independent contractors.

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

Self-employed physicians have the highest salaries, largest homes, and greatest wealth – yet they feel the least fairly compensated, according to an analysis of data from over 17,000 physicians.

A new examination of survey responses from the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which included information about income, job satisfaction, and more, compared responses from self-employed physicians, independent contractors, and employed physicians.

Income and wealth, benefits, and job satisfaction were compared. From the results of the questionnaire, self-employed physicians stand out among their peers across all categories: They enjoy greater income, wealth, and benefits and appear to be more satisfied by their choice of practice.

“The survey confirms that self-employed is the most satisfying, although the trend in health care is to take employed positions,” said Robert Scroggins, JD, CPA, certified health care business consultant with ScrogginsGreer, Cincinnati. “Doctors who become employees primarily do that to escape the management responsibilities for the practice. It seems to be more a decision to get away from something than to go toward something.”
 

The financial and work picture for self-employed physicians

Self-employed physicians reported the largest salaries for 2019 (average, $360,752), followed by independent contractors ($336,005). Employees reported the lowest average salary ($297,332).

The largest percentage of self-employed physicians (46%) work in an office-based group practice, followed by those in office-based solo practices (30%). Almost two-thirds of self-employed respondents are owners and 37% are partners.

Self-employed physicians are more likely to be older than 45 years; 79% fall into that age bracket, compared with 57% of employees and 70% of independent contractors.

Self-employed physicians reported the highest levels of wealth among their peers. About 44% of self-employed respondents declared a net wealth of over $2 million, compared with 25% of employees. Only 6% of contractors and employed physicians reported a net wealth of over $5 million, compared with 13% of self-employed physicians.

Self-employed physicians also managed their personal expenses slightly differently. They were more likely to pool their income with their spouse in a common account used for bills and expenses, regardless of how much they each earned (63% of self-employed respondents, compared with 58% of employees and 50% of independent contractors).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-employed physicians also reported having the largest homes, with an average square footage of 3,629 square feet, compared with 3,023 square feet for employees and 2,984 square feet for independent contractors. Self-employed physicians’ mortgages (average, $240,389) were similar to those of employed physicians’ mortgages but were higher than those of independent contractors’ mortgages (average, $213,740).

Self-employed physicians were also most likely to highly appraise their own performance: Half of all self-employed respondents felt “very satisfied” with their job performance, compared with 40% of employees and 44% of independent contractors.

When asked what they consider to be the most rewarding aspect of their job, self-employed physicians were more likely to choose gratitude and patient relationships than their peers (32%, compared with 26% of employees and 19% of independent contractors).

Despite their higher net wealth and larger salaries, self-employed physicians were least likely to feel fairly compensated; 49% of self-employed physicians said they did not feel fairly compensated for their work, compared with 40% of employees and 40% of independent contractors.

“Self-employed physicians may be better compensated than others of the same specialty who are employees, so some of that may be perception,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Or they feel they should be compensated to a far greater degree than those who are employed.”

Self-employed physicians were also more likely to respond that they would choose the same practice setting again, though across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for employed physicians

About a third (32%) of employed physician respondents work in hospitals; 28% work in private practices.

Employed physicians were most likely to report a salary increase from 2018 to 2019: 74%, compared with 45% of self-employed and 52% of independent contractors.

As for declines in income, self-employed physicians and independent contractors suffered a comparable loss, with 13% and 12% of them, respectively, reporting salary cuts greater than 10%. Decreases of up to 10% were felt mostly by the self-employed, with 17% experiencing such cuts, compared with 7% of employees and 10% of independent contractors.

In contrast, employees were the least likely of the three categories to have incurred large financial losses over the past year: 77% of employed respondents indicated that they had not experienced any significant financial losses in the past year, compared with 63% of self-employed physicians and 63% of independent contractors. They were also least likely to have made any investments at all over the past year – 21% of employees reported having made none at all in 2019, compared to 11% of self-employed physicians and 16% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for independent contractors

Just over half (52%) of all independent contractors who responded to our questionnaire work in hospitals, 15% work in group practices, 9% work in outpatient clinics, and just 2% work in solo practices.

Independent contractors were less likely than their peers to have received employment benefits such as health insurance, malpractice coverage, and paid time off. They were also less likely to be saving for retirement. Almost half (45%) of independent contractors said they received no employment benefits at all, compared to 20% of self-employed physicians and just 8% of employees.

What’s more, 27% of independent contractors do not currently put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred college savings account on a regular basis, compared with 16% of self-employed physicians and 8% of employees. Similarly, they were less likely to put money into a taxable savings account (39% responded that they do not, compared with 32% of self-employed physicians and 27% of employees).

“Net worth and retirement funding findings do line up with what I’ve observed,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Those who have independent practices as opposed to working for a hospital do tend to more heavily fund retirement plan accounts, which is typically the biggest driver of building net worth.”

Despite the lack of retirement planning, independent contractors were more likely than their peers to derive satisfaction from making money at a job they like (18%, compared with 12% of employees and 11% of self-employed physicians). They’re also far more likely to be in emergency medicine (22% of independent contractors, compared with 3% of self-employed and 5% of employees) or psychiatry (11% of independent contractors, compared with 5% of self-employed and 6% of employees).

Among the three categories of physicians, independent contractors were least likely to say that they would choose the same practice setting again. Across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.

Physicians who are considering leaving their own practice for a hospital setting should do so with caution and fully understand what they are getting into, said Mr. Scroggins. “If they’re just looking at compensation, they also should be looking very carefully at retirement plan benefits. If that’s their main method of saving and building net worth, then that’s a dramatic difference.”

And of course, there’s always the intangible value of feeling connected to a practice and its patients: “Physicians got into this line of work to treat patients and help people become healthier, and in hospitals they end up being more disconnected from their patients,” Mr. Scroggins said. “That’s a big factor as well.”

Editor’s note: Only differences that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level between categories of employment have been included. Of the 13,893 responses included in this analysis, 3,860 physicians identified as self-employed, 9,262 as employees, and 772 as independent contractors.

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

Self-employed physicians have the highest salaries, largest homes, and greatest wealth – yet they feel the least fairly compensated, according to an analysis of data from over 17,000 physicians.

A new examination of survey responses from the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which included information about income, job satisfaction, and more, compared responses from self-employed physicians, independent contractors, and employed physicians.

Income and wealth, benefits, and job satisfaction were compared. From the results of the questionnaire, self-employed physicians stand out among their peers across all categories: They enjoy greater income, wealth, and benefits and appear to be more satisfied by their choice of practice.

“The survey confirms that self-employed is the most satisfying, although the trend in health care is to take employed positions,” said Robert Scroggins, JD, CPA, certified health care business consultant with ScrogginsGreer, Cincinnati. “Doctors who become employees primarily do that to escape the management responsibilities for the practice. It seems to be more a decision to get away from something than to go toward something.”
 

The financial and work picture for self-employed physicians

Self-employed physicians reported the largest salaries for 2019 (average, $360,752), followed by independent contractors ($336,005). Employees reported the lowest average salary ($297,332).

The largest percentage of self-employed physicians (46%) work in an office-based group practice, followed by those in office-based solo practices (30%). Almost two-thirds of self-employed respondents are owners and 37% are partners.

Self-employed physicians are more likely to be older than 45 years; 79% fall into that age bracket, compared with 57% of employees and 70% of independent contractors.

Self-employed physicians reported the highest levels of wealth among their peers. About 44% of self-employed respondents declared a net wealth of over $2 million, compared with 25% of employees. Only 6% of contractors and employed physicians reported a net wealth of over $5 million, compared with 13% of self-employed physicians.

Self-employed physicians also managed their personal expenses slightly differently. They were more likely to pool their income with their spouse in a common account used for bills and expenses, regardless of how much they each earned (63% of self-employed respondents, compared with 58% of employees and 50% of independent contractors).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-employed physicians also reported having the largest homes, with an average square footage of 3,629 square feet, compared with 3,023 square feet for employees and 2,984 square feet for independent contractors. Self-employed physicians’ mortgages (average, $240,389) were similar to those of employed physicians’ mortgages but were higher than those of independent contractors’ mortgages (average, $213,740).

Self-employed physicians were also most likely to highly appraise their own performance: Half of all self-employed respondents felt “very satisfied” with their job performance, compared with 40% of employees and 44% of independent contractors.

When asked what they consider to be the most rewarding aspect of their job, self-employed physicians were more likely to choose gratitude and patient relationships than their peers (32%, compared with 26% of employees and 19% of independent contractors).

Despite their higher net wealth and larger salaries, self-employed physicians were least likely to feel fairly compensated; 49% of self-employed physicians said they did not feel fairly compensated for their work, compared with 40% of employees and 40% of independent contractors.

“Self-employed physicians may be better compensated than others of the same specialty who are employees, so some of that may be perception,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Or they feel they should be compensated to a far greater degree than those who are employed.”

Self-employed physicians were also more likely to respond that they would choose the same practice setting again, though across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for employed physicians

About a third (32%) of employed physician respondents work in hospitals; 28% work in private practices.

Employed physicians were most likely to report a salary increase from 2018 to 2019: 74%, compared with 45% of self-employed and 52% of independent contractors.

As for declines in income, self-employed physicians and independent contractors suffered a comparable loss, with 13% and 12% of them, respectively, reporting salary cuts greater than 10%. Decreases of up to 10% were felt mostly by the self-employed, with 17% experiencing such cuts, compared with 7% of employees and 10% of independent contractors.

In contrast, employees were the least likely of the three categories to have incurred large financial losses over the past year: 77% of employed respondents indicated that they had not experienced any significant financial losses in the past year, compared with 63% of self-employed physicians and 63% of independent contractors. They were also least likely to have made any investments at all over the past year – 21% of employees reported having made none at all in 2019, compared to 11% of self-employed physicians and 16% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for independent contractors

Just over half (52%) of all independent contractors who responded to our questionnaire work in hospitals, 15% work in group practices, 9% work in outpatient clinics, and just 2% work in solo practices.

Independent contractors were less likely than their peers to have received employment benefits such as health insurance, malpractice coverage, and paid time off. They were also less likely to be saving for retirement. Almost half (45%) of independent contractors said they received no employment benefits at all, compared to 20% of self-employed physicians and just 8% of employees.

What’s more, 27% of independent contractors do not currently put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred college savings account on a regular basis, compared with 16% of self-employed physicians and 8% of employees. Similarly, they were less likely to put money into a taxable savings account (39% responded that they do not, compared with 32% of self-employed physicians and 27% of employees).

“Net worth and retirement funding findings do line up with what I’ve observed,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Those who have independent practices as opposed to working for a hospital do tend to more heavily fund retirement plan accounts, which is typically the biggest driver of building net worth.”

Despite the lack of retirement planning, independent contractors were more likely than their peers to derive satisfaction from making money at a job they like (18%, compared with 12% of employees and 11% of self-employed physicians). They’re also far more likely to be in emergency medicine (22% of independent contractors, compared with 3% of self-employed and 5% of employees) or psychiatry (11% of independent contractors, compared with 5% of self-employed and 6% of employees).

Among the three categories of physicians, independent contractors were least likely to say that they would choose the same practice setting again. Across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.

Physicians who are considering leaving their own practice for a hospital setting should do so with caution and fully understand what they are getting into, said Mr. Scroggins. “If they’re just looking at compensation, they also should be looking very carefully at retirement plan benefits. If that’s their main method of saving and building net worth, then that’s a dramatic difference.”

And of course, there’s always the intangible value of feeling connected to a practice and its patients: “Physicians got into this line of work to treat patients and help people become healthier, and in hospitals they end up being more disconnected from their patients,” Mr. Scroggins said. “That’s a big factor as well.”

Editor’s note: Only differences that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level between categories of employment have been included. Of the 13,893 responses included in this analysis, 3,860 physicians identified as self-employed, 9,262 as employees, and 772 as independent contractors.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.