MDedge Neurology

A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that uncontrolled high blood pressure along with considerable undertreatment of the condition were prevalent in individuals with a history of both hypertension and stroke. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.

More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
 

Continued surveillance is key

“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.

“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”

In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”

The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.

Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.

A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that uncontrolled high blood pressure along with considerable undertreatment of the condition were prevalent in individuals with a history of both hypertension and stroke. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.

More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
 

Continued surveillance is key

“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.

“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”

In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”

The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.

Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.

A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that uncontrolled high blood pressure along with considerable undertreatment of the condition were prevalent in individuals with a history of both hypertension and stroke. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.

More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
 

Continued surveillance is key

“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.

“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”

In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”

The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.

Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Darth Vader is, to me, one of the most intimidating villains in movie history. I was 11 when Star Wars came out. I even cleaned my room so my mother would take me to see it.

When Darth Vader first walked on screen, it was striking. A tall, imposing figure in black, with harsh mechanical respirations. There was no question of who the bad guy was. As the movie progressed his darkness became more frightening until, in the first lightsaber battle any of us had seen, he cut down the benevolent Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Last year my family went to Disneyland. While browsing the park’s stores we saw numerous Darth Vader items ... with him now available as a teddy bear, and on T-shirts riding carousels and the Dumbo ride.

From terrifying villain to cutesy toy in 43 years.* Quite the fall from glory.

Diseases are often (and hopefully) like that. Syphilis, once the most common, feared, and incurable neurologic disease is now, for most, just a nuisance. The butt of jokes and sexual innuendos, rendered harmless by Alexander Fleming’s discoveries.

Bit by bit we see other diseases tamed. Multiple sclerosis, though still serious, becomes better controlled every year as new agents come out. The cure for Parkinson’s disease remains elusive, but agents to control the symptoms and improve quality of life are available. Even HIV, the most feared disease of the 80s and 90s, has been beaten back from a terrible death sentence to one where patients lead normal lives with antiviral therapy.

Today we face a new enemy, the COVID-19 pandemic. So far we have no definite treatments, nor shortage of ideas. Many companies are racing to develop a vaccine, and will likely, at some point, find one, but what and when are still in the future. Hopefully, like previously devastating illnesses, COVID-19 will be brought under control, too.

Alzheimer’s disease, for all practical purposes, remains untreatable and rightfully feared. Perhaps the only ones more terrifying are those we’ve reduced to just three letters: ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and GBM (glioblastoma multiforme). Both have terrible courses and, in spite of years of research, nothing even close to an effective treatment.

I hope that changes, and soon, for all those affected by these (and many other) terrible disorders.

Like the Darth Vader teddy bear, I’ll be happy to see them become shells of their former selves, with the dread they bring now reduced to the lesser trepidation seen when facing a serious, but treatable, illness.

*Correction, 8/11/20: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years since Star Wars debuted.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Darth Vader is, to me, one of the most intimidating villains in movie history. I was 11 when Star Wars came out. I even cleaned my room so my mother would take me to see it.

When Darth Vader first walked on screen, it was striking. A tall, imposing figure in black, with harsh mechanical respirations. There was no question of who the bad guy was. As the movie progressed his darkness became more frightening until, in the first lightsaber battle any of us had seen, he cut down the benevolent Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Last year my family went to Disneyland. While browsing the park’s stores we saw numerous Darth Vader items ... with him now available as a teddy bear, and on T-shirts riding carousels and the Dumbo ride.

From terrifying villain to cutesy toy in 43 years.* Quite the fall from glory.

Diseases are often (and hopefully) like that. Syphilis, once the most common, feared, and incurable neurologic disease is now, for most, just a nuisance. The butt of jokes and sexual innuendos, rendered harmless by Alexander Fleming’s discoveries.

Bit by bit we see other diseases tamed. Multiple sclerosis, though still serious, becomes better controlled every year as new agents come out. The cure for Parkinson’s disease remains elusive, but agents to control the symptoms and improve quality of life are available. Even HIV, the most feared disease of the 80s and 90s, has been beaten back from a terrible death sentence to one where patients lead normal lives with antiviral therapy.

Today we face a new enemy, the COVID-19 pandemic. So far we have no definite treatments, nor shortage of ideas. Many companies are racing to develop a vaccine, and will likely, at some point, find one, but what and when are still in the future. Hopefully, like previously devastating illnesses, COVID-19 will be brought under control, too.

Alzheimer’s disease, for all practical purposes, remains untreatable and rightfully feared. Perhaps the only ones more terrifying are those we’ve reduced to just three letters: ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and GBM (glioblastoma multiforme). Both have terrible courses and, in spite of years of research, nothing even close to an effective treatment.

I hope that changes, and soon, for all those affected by these (and many other) terrible disorders.

Like the Darth Vader teddy bear, I’ll be happy to see them become shells of their former selves, with the dread they bring now reduced to the lesser trepidation seen when facing a serious, but treatable, illness.

*Correction, 8/11/20: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years since Star Wars debuted.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Darth Vader is, to me, one of the most intimidating villains in movie history. I was 11 when Star Wars came out. I even cleaned my room so my mother would take me to see it.

When Darth Vader first walked on screen, it was striking. A tall, imposing figure in black, with harsh mechanical respirations. There was no question of who the bad guy was. As the movie progressed his darkness became more frightening until, in the first lightsaber battle any of us had seen, he cut down the benevolent Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Last year my family went to Disneyland. While browsing the park’s stores we saw numerous Darth Vader items ... with him now available as a teddy bear, and on T-shirts riding carousels and the Dumbo ride.

From terrifying villain to cutesy toy in 43 years.* Quite the fall from glory.

Diseases are often (and hopefully) like that. Syphilis, once the most common, feared, and incurable neurologic disease is now, for most, just a nuisance. The butt of jokes and sexual innuendos, rendered harmless by Alexander Fleming’s discoveries.

Bit by bit we see other diseases tamed. Multiple sclerosis, though still serious, becomes better controlled every year as new agents come out. The cure for Parkinson’s disease remains elusive, but agents to control the symptoms and improve quality of life are available. Even HIV, the most feared disease of the 80s and 90s, has been beaten back from a terrible death sentence to one where patients lead normal lives with antiviral therapy.

Today we face a new enemy, the COVID-19 pandemic. So far we have no definite treatments, nor shortage of ideas. Many companies are racing to develop a vaccine, and will likely, at some point, find one, but what and when are still in the future. Hopefully, like previously devastating illnesses, COVID-19 will be brought under control, too.

Alzheimer’s disease, for all practical purposes, remains untreatable and rightfully feared. Perhaps the only ones more terrifying are those we’ve reduced to just three letters: ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and GBM (glioblastoma multiforme). Both have terrible courses and, in spite of years of research, nothing even close to an effective treatment.

I hope that changes, and soon, for all those affected by these (and many other) terrible disorders.

Like the Darth Vader teddy bear, I’ll be happy to see them become shells of their former selves, with the dread they bring now reduced to the lesser trepidation seen when facing a serious, but treatable, illness.

*Correction, 8/11/20: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years since Star Wars debuted.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Most children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no respiratory illness, according to data from a retrospective study of 22 patients at a single center.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

To date, children account for less than 5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but details of the clinical presentations in children are limited, wrote Rabia Agha, MD, and colleagues of Maimonides Children’s Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y.

In a study published in Hospital Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 22 children aged 0-18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were admitted to a single hospital over a 4-week period from March 18, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Overall, 9 patients (41%) presented with a respiratory illness, and 7 (32%) required respiratory support. Of four patients requiring mechanical ventilation, two had underlying pulmonary disease. The other two patients who required intubation were one with cerebral palsy and status epilepticus and one who presented in a state of cardiac arrest.

The study population ranged from 11 days to 18 years of age, but 45% were infants younger than 1 year. None of the children had a travel history that might increase their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 27% had confirmed exposure to the virus.

Most of the children (82%) were hospitalized within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, and no deaths occurred during the study period. The most common symptom was fever without a source in five (23%) otherwise healthy infants aged 11-35 days. All five of these children underwent a sepsis evaluation, received empiric antibiotics, and were discharged home with negative bacterial cultures within 48-72 hours. Another 10 children had fever in combination with other symptoms.

Other presenting symptoms were respiratory (9), fatigue (6), seizures (2), and headache (1).

Most children with respiratory illness were treated with supportive therapy and antibiotics, but three of those on mechanical ventilation also were treated with remdesivir; all three were ultimately extubated.

Neurological abnormalities occurred in two patients: an 11-year-old otherwise healthy boy who presented with fever, headache, confusion, and seizure but ultimately improved without short-term sequelae; and a 12-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who developed new onset seizures and required mechanical ventilation, but ultimately improved to baseline.

Positive PCR results were identified in seven patients (32%) during the second half of the study period who were initially hospitalized for non-COVID related symptoms; four with bacterial infections, two with illnesses of unknown etiology, and one with cardiac arrest. Another two children were completely asymptomatic at the time of admission but then tested positive by PCR; one child had been admitted for routine chemotherapy and the other for social reasons, Dr. Agha and associates said.

The study findings contrast with early data from China in which respiratory illness of varying severity was the major presentation in children with COVID-19, but support a more recent meta-analysis of 551 cases, the researchers noted. The findings also highlight the value of universal testing for children.

“Our initial testing strategy was according to the federal and local guidelines that recommended PCR testing for the symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath, or travel to certain countries or close contact with a confirmed case,” Dr. Agha and colleagues said.

“With the implementation of our universal screening strategy of all admitted pediatric patients, we identified 9 (41%) patients with COVID-19 that would have been missed, as they did not meet the then-recommended criteria for testing,” they wrote.

The results suggest the need for broader guidelines to test pediatric patients because children presenting with other illnesses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 as well, the researchers said.

“Testing of all hospitalized patients will not only identify cases early in the course of their admission process, but will also help prevent inadvertent exposure of other patients and health care workers, assist in cohorting infected patients, and aid in conservation of personal protective equipment,” Dr. Agha and associates concluded.

The current study is important as clinicians continue to learn about how infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents in different populations, Diana Lee, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Understanding how it can present in the pediatric population is important in identifying children who may have the infection and developing strategies for testing,” she said.

“I was not surprised by the finding that most children did not present with the classic symptoms of COVID-19 in adults based on other published studies and my personal clinical experience taking care of hospitalized children in New York City,” said Dr. Lee. “Studies from the U.S. and other countries have reported that fewer children experience fever, cough, and shortness of breath [compared with] adults, and that most children have a milder clinical course, though there is a small percentage of children who can have severe or critical illness,” she said.

“A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with COVID-19 has also emerged and appears to be a postinfectious process with a presentation that often differs from classic COVID-19 infection in adults,” she added.

The take-home message for clinicians is the reminder that SARS-CoV-2 infection often presents differently in children than in adults, said Dr. Lee.

“Children who present to the hospital with non-classic COVID-19 symptoms or with other diagnoses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on testing. Broadly testing hospitalized children for SARS-CoV-2 and instituting appropriate isolation precautions may help to protect other individuals from being exposed to the virus,” she said.  

“Further research is needed to understand which individuals are contagious and how to accurately distinguish those who are infectious versus those who are not,” said Dr. Lee. “There have been individuals who persistently test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (the genetic material of the virus), but were not found to have virus in their bodies that can replicate and thereby infect others,” she emphasized. “Further study is needed regarding the likelihood of household exposures in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection given that this study was done early in the epidemic in New York City when testing and contact tracing was less established,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Agha R et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 July. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-000257.

Most children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no respiratory illness, according to data from a retrospective study of 22 patients at a single center.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

To date, children account for less than 5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but details of the clinical presentations in children are limited, wrote Rabia Agha, MD, and colleagues of Maimonides Children’s Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y.

In a study published in Hospital Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 22 children aged 0-18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were admitted to a single hospital over a 4-week period from March 18, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Overall, 9 patients (41%) presented with a respiratory illness, and 7 (32%) required respiratory support. Of four patients requiring mechanical ventilation, two had underlying pulmonary disease. The other two patients who required intubation were one with cerebral palsy and status epilepticus and one who presented in a state of cardiac arrest.

The study population ranged from 11 days to 18 years of age, but 45% were infants younger than 1 year. None of the children had a travel history that might increase their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 27% had confirmed exposure to the virus.

Most of the children (82%) were hospitalized within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, and no deaths occurred during the study period. The most common symptom was fever without a source in five (23%) otherwise healthy infants aged 11-35 days. All five of these children underwent a sepsis evaluation, received empiric antibiotics, and were discharged home with negative bacterial cultures within 48-72 hours. Another 10 children had fever in combination with other symptoms.

Other presenting symptoms were respiratory (9), fatigue (6), seizures (2), and headache (1).

Most children with respiratory illness were treated with supportive therapy and antibiotics, but three of those on mechanical ventilation also were treated with remdesivir; all three were ultimately extubated.

Neurological abnormalities occurred in two patients: an 11-year-old otherwise healthy boy who presented with fever, headache, confusion, and seizure but ultimately improved without short-term sequelae; and a 12-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who developed new onset seizures and required mechanical ventilation, but ultimately improved to baseline.

Positive PCR results were identified in seven patients (32%) during the second half of the study period who were initially hospitalized for non-COVID related symptoms; four with bacterial infections, two with illnesses of unknown etiology, and one with cardiac arrest. Another two children were completely asymptomatic at the time of admission but then tested positive by PCR; one child had been admitted for routine chemotherapy and the other for social reasons, Dr. Agha and associates said.

The study findings contrast with early data from China in which respiratory illness of varying severity was the major presentation in children with COVID-19, but support a more recent meta-analysis of 551 cases, the researchers noted. The findings also highlight the value of universal testing for children.

“Our initial testing strategy was according to the federal and local guidelines that recommended PCR testing for the symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath, or travel to certain countries or close contact with a confirmed case,” Dr. Agha and colleagues said.

“With the implementation of our universal screening strategy of all admitted pediatric patients, we identified 9 (41%) patients with COVID-19 that would have been missed, as they did not meet the then-recommended criteria for testing,” they wrote.

The results suggest the need for broader guidelines to test pediatric patients because children presenting with other illnesses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 as well, the researchers said.

“Testing of all hospitalized patients will not only identify cases early in the course of their admission process, but will also help prevent inadvertent exposure of other patients and health care workers, assist in cohorting infected patients, and aid in conservation of personal protective equipment,” Dr. Agha and associates concluded.

The current study is important as clinicians continue to learn about how infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents in different populations, Diana Lee, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Understanding how it can present in the pediatric population is important in identifying children who may have the infection and developing strategies for testing,” she said.

“I was not surprised by the finding that most children did not present with the classic symptoms of COVID-19 in adults based on other published studies and my personal clinical experience taking care of hospitalized children in New York City,” said Dr. Lee. “Studies from the U.S. and other countries have reported that fewer children experience fever, cough, and shortness of breath [compared with] adults, and that most children have a milder clinical course, though there is a small percentage of children who can have severe or critical illness,” she said.

“A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with COVID-19 has also emerged and appears to be a postinfectious process with a presentation that often differs from classic COVID-19 infection in adults,” she added.

The take-home message for clinicians is the reminder that SARS-CoV-2 infection often presents differently in children than in adults, said Dr. Lee.

“Children who present to the hospital with non-classic COVID-19 symptoms or with other diagnoses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on testing. Broadly testing hospitalized children for SARS-CoV-2 and instituting appropriate isolation precautions may help to protect other individuals from being exposed to the virus,” she said.  

“Further research is needed to understand which individuals are contagious and how to accurately distinguish those who are infectious versus those who are not,” said Dr. Lee. “There have been individuals who persistently test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (the genetic material of the virus), but were not found to have virus in their bodies that can replicate and thereby infect others,” she emphasized. “Further study is needed regarding the likelihood of household exposures in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection given that this study was done early in the epidemic in New York City when testing and contact tracing was less established,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Agha R et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 July. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-000257.

Most children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no respiratory illness, according to data from a retrospective study of 22 patients at a single center.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

To date, children account for less than 5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but details of the clinical presentations in children are limited, wrote Rabia Agha, MD, and colleagues of Maimonides Children’s Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y.

In a study published in Hospital Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 22 children aged 0-18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were admitted to a single hospital over a 4-week period from March 18, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Overall, 9 patients (41%) presented with a respiratory illness, and 7 (32%) required respiratory support. Of four patients requiring mechanical ventilation, two had underlying pulmonary disease. The other two patients who required intubation were one with cerebral palsy and status epilepticus and one who presented in a state of cardiac arrest.

The study population ranged from 11 days to 18 years of age, but 45% were infants younger than 1 year. None of the children had a travel history that might increase their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 27% had confirmed exposure to the virus.

Most of the children (82%) were hospitalized within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, and no deaths occurred during the study period. The most common symptom was fever without a source in five (23%) otherwise healthy infants aged 11-35 days. All five of these children underwent a sepsis evaluation, received empiric antibiotics, and were discharged home with negative bacterial cultures within 48-72 hours. Another 10 children had fever in combination with other symptoms.

Other presenting symptoms were respiratory (9), fatigue (6), seizures (2), and headache (1).

Most children with respiratory illness were treated with supportive therapy and antibiotics, but three of those on mechanical ventilation also were treated with remdesivir; all three were ultimately extubated.

Neurological abnormalities occurred in two patients: an 11-year-old otherwise healthy boy who presented with fever, headache, confusion, and seizure but ultimately improved without short-term sequelae; and a 12-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who developed new onset seizures and required mechanical ventilation, but ultimately improved to baseline.

Positive PCR results were identified in seven patients (32%) during the second half of the study period who were initially hospitalized for non-COVID related symptoms; four with bacterial infections, two with illnesses of unknown etiology, and one with cardiac arrest. Another two children were completely asymptomatic at the time of admission but then tested positive by PCR; one child had been admitted for routine chemotherapy and the other for social reasons, Dr. Agha and associates said.

The study findings contrast with early data from China in which respiratory illness of varying severity was the major presentation in children with COVID-19, but support a more recent meta-analysis of 551 cases, the researchers noted. The findings also highlight the value of universal testing for children.

“Our initial testing strategy was according to the federal and local guidelines that recommended PCR testing for the symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath, or travel to certain countries or close contact with a confirmed case,” Dr. Agha and colleagues said.

“With the implementation of our universal screening strategy of all admitted pediatric patients, we identified 9 (41%) patients with COVID-19 that would have been missed, as they did not meet the then-recommended criteria for testing,” they wrote.

The results suggest the need for broader guidelines to test pediatric patients because children presenting with other illnesses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 as well, the researchers said.

“Testing of all hospitalized patients will not only identify cases early in the course of their admission process, but will also help prevent inadvertent exposure of other patients and health care workers, assist in cohorting infected patients, and aid in conservation of personal protective equipment,” Dr. Agha and associates concluded.

The current study is important as clinicians continue to learn about how infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents in different populations, Diana Lee, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Understanding how it can present in the pediatric population is important in identifying children who may have the infection and developing strategies for testing,” she said.

“I was not surprised by the finding that most children did not present with the classic symptoms of COVID-19 in adults based on other published studies and my personal clinical experience taking care of hospitalized children in New York City,” said Dr. Lee. “Studies from the U.S. and other countries have reported that fewer children experience fever, cough, and shortness of breath [compared with] adults, and that most children have a milder clinical course, though there is a small percentage of children who can have severe or critical illness,” she said.

“A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with COVID-19 has also emerged and appears to be a postinfectious process with a presentation that often differs from classic COVID-19 infection in adults,” she added.

The take-home message for clinicians is the reminder that SARS-CoV-2 infection often presents differently in children than in adults, said Dr. Lee.

“Children who present to the hospital with non-classic COVID-19 symptoms or with other diagnoses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on testing. Broadly testing hospitalized children for SARS-CoV-2 and instituting appropriate isolation precautions may help to protect other individuals from being exposed to the virus,” she said.  

“Further research is needed to understand which individuals are contagious and how to accurately distinguish those who are infectious versus those who are not,” said Dr. Lee. “There have been individuals who persistently test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (the genetic material of the virus), but were not found to have virus in their bodies that can replicate and thereby infect others,” she emphasized. “Further study is needed regarding the likelihood of household exposures in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection given that this study was done early in the epidemic in New York City when testing and contact tracing was less established,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Agha R et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 July. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-000257.

Modifying 12 risk factors over the life course could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases, according to an update of the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care.

The original report, published in 2017, identified nine modifiable risk factors that were estimated to be responsible for one-third of dementia cases. The commission has now added three new modifiable risk factors to the list.

“We reconvened the 2017 Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care to identify the evidence for advances likely to have the greatest impact since our 2017 paper,” the authors wrote.

The 2020 report was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2020 and also was  published online July 30 in the Lancet.
 

Alcohol, TBI, air pollution

The three new risk factors that have been added in the latest update are excessive alcohol intake, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and air pollution. The original nine risk factors were not completing secondary education; hypertension; obesity; hearing loss; smoking; depression; physical inactivity; social isolation; and diabetes. Together, these 12 risk factors are estimated to account for 40% of the world’s dementia cases.

“We knew in 2017 when we published our first report with the nine risk factors that they would only be part of the story and that several other factors would likely be involved,” said lead author Gill Livingston, MD, professor, University College London (England). “We now have more published data giving enough evidence” to justify adding the three new factors to the list, she said.

The report includes the following nine recommendations for policymakers and individuals to prevent risk for dementia in the general population:

• Aim to maintain systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or less in midlife from around age 40 years.
• Encourage use of hearing aids for hearing loss, and reduce hearing loss by protecting ears from high noise levels.
• Reduce exposure to air pollution and second-hand tobacco smoke.
• Prevent , particularly by targeting high-risk occupations and transport.
• Prevent alcohol misuse and limit drinking to less than 21 units per week.
• Stop smoking and support individuals to stop smoking, which the authors stress is beneficial at any age.
• Provide all children with primary and secondary education.
• Lead an active life into midlife and possibly later life.
• Reduce obesity and diabetes.

The report also summarizes the evidence supporting the three new risk factors for dementia.

TBI is usually caused by car, motorcycle, and bicycle injuries; military exposures; boxing, horse riding, and other recreational sports; firearms; and falls. The report notes that a single severe TBI is associated in humans and in mouse models with widespread hyperphosphorylated tau pathology. It also cites several nationwide studies that show that TBI is linked with a significantly increased risk for long-term dementia.

“We are not advising against partaking in sports, as playing sports is healthy. But we are urging people to take precautions to protect themselves properly,” Dr. Livingston said.

For excessive alcohol consumption, the report states that an “increasing body of evidence is emerging on alcohol’s complex relationship with cognition and dementia outcomes from a variety of sources including detailed cohorts and large-scale record-based studies.” One French study, which included more than 31 million individuals admitted to the hospital, showed that alcohol use disorders were associated with a threefold increased dementia risk. However, other studies have suggested that moderate drinking may be protective.

“We are not saying it is bad to drink, but we are saying it is bad to drink more than 21 units a week,” Dr. Livingston noted.

On air pollution, the report notes that in animal studies, airborne particulate pollutants have been found to accelerate neurodegenerative processes. Also, high nitrogen dioxide concentrations, fine ambient particulate matter from traffic exhaust, and residential wood burning have been shown in past research to be associated with increased dementia incidence.

“While we need international policy on reducing air pollution, individuals can take some action to reduce their risk,” Dr. Livingston said. For example, she suggested avoiding walking right next to busy roads and instead walking “a few streets back if possible.”
 

Hearing loss

The researchers assessed how much each risk factor contributes to dementia, expressed as the population-attributable fraction (PAF). Hearing loss had the greatest effect, accounting for an estimated 8.2% of dementia cases. This was followed by lower education levels in young people (7.1%) and smoking (5.2%).

Dr. Livingston noted that the evidence that hearing loss is one of the most important risk factors for dementia is very strong. New studies show that correcting hearing loss with hearing aids negates any increased risk.

Hearing loss “has both a high relative risk for dementia and is a common problem, so it contributes a significant amount to dementia cases. This is really something that we can reduce relatively easily by encouraging use of hearing aids. They need to be made more accessible, more comfortable, and more acceptable,” she said.

“This could make a huge difference in reducing dementia cases in the future,” Dr. Livingston added.

Other risk factors for which the evidence base has strengthened since the 2017 report include systolic blood pressure, social interaction, and early-life education.

Dr. Livingston noted that the SPRINT MIND trial showed that aiming for a target systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg reduced risk for future mild cognitive impairment. “Before, we thought under 140 was the target, but now are recommending under 130 to reduce risks of dementia,” she said.

Evidence on social interaction “has been very consistent, and we now have more certainty on this. It is now well established that increased social interaction in midlife reduces dementia in late life,” said Dr. Livingston.

On the benefits of education in the young, she noted that it has been known for some time that education for individuals younger than 11 years is important in reducing later-life dementia. However, it is now thought that education to the age of 20 also makes a difference.

“While keeping the brain active in later years has some positive effects, increasing brain activity in young people seems to be more important. This is probably because of the better plasticity of the brain in the young,” she said.
 

Sleep and diet

Two risk factors that have not made it onto the list are diet and sleep. “While there has also been a lot more data published on nutrition and sleep with regard to dementia in the last few years, we didn’t think the evidence stacked up enough to include these on the list of modifiable risk factors,” Dr. Livingston said.

The report cites studies that suggest that both more sleep and less sleep are associated with increased risk for dementia, which the authors thought did not make “biological sense.” In addition, other underlying factors involved in sleep, such as depression, apathy, and different sleep patterns, may be symptoms of early dementia.

More data have been published on diet and dementia, “but there isn’t any individual vitamin deficit that is associated with the condition. The evidence is quite clear on that,” Dr. Livingston said. “Global diets, such as the Mediterranean or Nordic diets, can probably make a difference, but there doesn’t seem to be any one particular element that is needed,” she noted.

“We just recommend to eat a healthy diet and stay a healthy weight. Diet is very connected to economic circumstances and so very difficult to separate out as a risk factor. We do think it is linked, but we are not convinced enough to put it in the model,” she added.

Among other key information that has become available since 2017, Dr. Livingston highlighted new data showing that dementia is more common in less privileged populations, including Black and minority ethnic groups and low- and middle-income countries.

Although dementia was traditionally considered a disease of high-income countries, that has now been shown not to be the case. “People in low- and middle-income countries are now living longer and so are developing dementia more, and they have higher rates of many of the risk factors, including smoking and low education levels. There is a huge potential for prevention in these countries,” said Dr. Livingston.

She also highlighted new evidence showing that patients with dementia do not do well when admitted to the hospital. “So we need to do more to keep them well at home,” she said.
 

COVID-19 advice

The report also has a section on COVID-19. It points out that patients with dementia are particularly vulnerable to the disease because of their age, multimorbidities, and difficulties in maintaining physical distancing. Death certificates from the United Kingdom indicate that dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the most common underlying conditions (present in 25.6% of all deaths involving COVID-19).

The situation is particularly concerning in care homes. In one U.S. study, nursing home residents living with dementia made up 52% of COVID-19 cases, yet they accounted for 72% of all deaths (increased risk, 1.7), the commission reported.

The authors recommended rigorous public health measures, such as protective equipment and hygiene, not moving staff or residents between care homes, and not admitting new residents when their COVID-19 status is unknown. The report also recommends regular testing of staff in care homes and the provision of oxygen therapy at the home to avoid hospital admission.

It is also important to reduce isolation by providing the necessary equipment to relatives and offering them brief training on how to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 so that they can visit their relatives with dementia in nursing homes safely when it is allowed.
 

“Most comprehensive overview to date”

Alzheimer’s Research UK welcomed the new report. “This is the most comprehensive overview into dementia risk to date, building on previous work by this commission and moving our understanding forward,” Rosa Sancho, PhD, head of research at the charity, said.

“This report underlines the importance of acting at a personal and policy level to reduce dementia risk. With Alzheimer’s Research UK’s Dementia Attitudes Monitor showing just a third of people think it’s possible to reduce their risk of developing dementia, there’s clearly much to do here to increase people’s awareness of the steps they can take,” Dr. Sancho said.

She added that, although there is “no surefire way of preventing dementia,” the best way to keep a brain healthy as it ages is for an individual to stay physically and mentally active, eat a healthy balanced diet, not smoke, drink only within the recommended limits, and keep weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure in check. “With no treatments yet able to slow or stop the onset of dementia, taking action to reduce these risks is an important part of our strategy for tackling the condition,” Dr. Sancho said.

The Lancet Commission is partnered by University College London, the Alzheimer’s Society UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, and Alzheimer’s Research UK, which funded fares, accommodation, and food for the commission meeting but had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.
 

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

Modifying 12 risk factors over the life course could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases, according to an update of the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care.

The original report, published in 2017, identified nine modifiable risk factors that were estimated to be responsible for one-third of dementia cases. The commission has now added three new modifiable risk factors to the list.

“We reconvened the 2017 Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care to identify the evidence for advances likely to have the greatest impact since our 2017 paper,” the authors wrote.

The 2020 report was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2020 and also was  published online July 30 in the Lancet.
 

Alcohol, TBI, air pollution

The three new risk factors that have been added in the latest update are excessive alcohol intake, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and air pollution. The original nine risk factors were not completing secondary education; hypertension; obesity; hearing loss; smoking; depression; physical inactivity; social isolation; and diabetes. Together, these 12 risk factors are estimated to account for 40% of the world’s dementia cases.

“We knew in 2017 when we published our first report with the nine risk factors that they would only be part of the story and that several other factors would likely be involved,” said lead author Gill Livingston, MD, professor, University College London (England). “We now have more published data giving enough evidence” to justify adding the three new factors to the list, she said.

The report includes the following nine recommendations for policymakers and individuals to prevent risk for dementia in the general population:

• Aim to maintain systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or less in midlife from around age 40 years.
• Encourage use of hearing aids for hearing loss, and reduce hearing loss by protecting ears from high noise levels.
• Reduce exposure to air pollution and second-hand tobacco smoke.
• Prevent , particularly by targeting high-risk occupations and transport.
• Prevent alcohol misuse and limit drinking to less than 21 units per week.
• Stop smoking and support individuals to stop smoking, which the authors stress is beneficial at any age.
• Provide all children with primary and secondary education.
• Lead an active life into midlife and possibly later life.
• Reduce obesity and diabetes.

The report also summarizes the evidence supporting the three new risk factors for dementia.

TBI is usually caused by car, motorcycle, and bicycle injuries; military exposures; boxing, horse riding, and other recreational sports; firearms; and falls. The report notes that a single severe TBI is associated in humans and in mouse models with widespread hyperphosphorylated tau pathology. It also cites several nationwide studies that show that TBI is linked with a significantly increased risk for long-term dementia.

“We are not advising against partaking in sports, as playing sports is healthy. But we are urging people to take precautions to protect themselves properly,” Dr. Livingston said.

For excessive alcohol consumption, the report states that an “increasing body of evidence is emerging on alcohol’s complex relationship with cognition and dementia outcomes from a variety of sources including detailed cohorts and large-scale record-based studies.” One French study, which included more than 31 million individuals admitted to the hospital, showed that alcohol use disorders were associated with a threefold increased dementia risk. However, other studies have suggested that moderate drinking may be protective.

“We are not saying it is bad to drink, but we are saying it is bad to drink more than 21 units a week,” Dr. Livingston noted.

On air pollution, the report notes that in animal studies, airborne particulate pollutants have been found to accelerate neurodegenerative processes. Also, high nitrogen dioxide concentrations, fine ambient particulate matter from traffic exhaust, and residential wood burning have been shown in past research to be associated with increased dementia incidence.

“While we need international policy on reducing air pollution, individuals can take some action to reduce their risk,” Dr. Livingston said. For example, she suggested avoiding walking right next to busy roads and instead walking “a few streets back if possible.”
 

Hearing loss

The researchers assessed how much each risk factor contributes to dementia, expressed as the population-attributable fraction (PAF). Hearing loss had the greatest effect, accounting for an estimated 8.2% of dementia cases. This was followed by lower education levels in young people (7.1%) and smoking (5.2%).

Dr. Livingston noted that the evidence that hearing loss is one of the most important risk factors for dementia is very strong. New studies show that correcting hearing loss with hearing aids negates any increased risk.

Hearing loss “has both a high relative risk for dementia and is a common problem, so it contributes a significant amount to dementia cases. This is really something that we can reduce relatively easily by encouraging use of hearing aids. They need to be made more accessible, more comfortable, and more acceptable,” she said.

“This could make a huge difference in reducing dementia cases in the future,” Dr. Livingston added.

Other risk factors for which the evidence base has strengthened since the 2017 report include systolic blood pressure, social interaction, and early-life education.

Dr. Livingston noted that the SPRINT MIND trial showed that aiming for a target systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg reduced risk for future mild cognitive impairment. “Before, we thought under 140 was the target, but now are recommending under 130 to reduce risks of dementia,” she said.

Evidence on social interaction “has been very consistent, and we now have more certainty on this. It is now well established that increased social interaction in midlife reduces dementia in late life,” said Dr. Livingston.

On the benefits of education in the young, she noted that it has been known for some time that education for individuals younger than 11 years is important in reducing later-life dementia. However, it is now thought that education to the age of 20 also makes a difference.

“While keeping the brain active in later years has some positive effects, increasing brain activity in young people seems to be more important. This is probably because of the better plasticity of the brain in the young,” she said.
 

Sleep and diet

Two risk factors that have not made it onto the list are diet and sleep. “While there has also been a lot more data published on nutrition and sleep with regard to dementia in the last few years, we didn’t think the evidence stacked up enough to include these on the list of modifiable risk factors,” Dr. Livingston said.

The report cites studies that suggest that both more sleep and less sleep are associated with increased risk for dementia, which the authors thought did not make “biological sense.” In addition, other underlying factors involved in sleep, such as depression, apathy, and different sleep patterns, may be symptoms of early dementia.

More data have been published on diet and dementia, “but there isn’t any individual vitamin deficit that is associated with the condition. The evidence is quite clear on that,” Dr. Livingston said. “Global diets, such as the Mediterranean or Nordic diets, can probably make a difference, but there doesn’t seem to be any one particular element that is needed,” she noted.

“We just recommend to eat a healthy diet and stay a healthy weight. Diet is very connected to economic circumstances and so very difficult to separate out as a risk factor. We do think it is linked, but we are not convinced enough to put it in the model,” she added.

Among other key information that has become available since 2017, Dr. Livingston highlighted new data showing that dementia is more common in less privileged populations, including Black and minority ethnic groups and low- and middle-income countries.

Although dementia was traditionally considered a disease of high-income countries, that has now been shown not to be the case. “People in low- and middle-income countries are now living longer and so are developing dementia more, and they have higher rates of many of the risk factors, including smoking and low education levels. There is a huge potential for prevention in these countries,” said Dr. Livingston.

She also highlighted new evidence showing that patients with dementia do not do well when admitted to the hospital. “So we need to do more to keep them well at home,” she said.
 

COVID-19 advice

The report also has a section on COVID-19. It points out that patients with dementia are particularly vulnerable to the disease because of their age, multimorbidities, and difficulties in maintaining physical distancing. Death certificates from the United Kingdom indicate that dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the most common underlying conditions (present in 25.6% of all deaths involving COVID-19).

The situation is particularly concerning in care homes. In one U.S. study, nursing home residents living with dementia made up 52% of COVID-19 cases, yet they accounted for 72% of all deaths (increased risk, 1.7), the commission reported.

The authors recommended rigorous public health measures, such as protective equipment and hygiene, not moving staff or residents between care homes, and not admitting new residents when their COVID-19 status is unknown. The report also recommends regular testing of staff in care homes and the provision of oxygen therapy at the home to avoid hospital admission.

It is also important to reduce isolation by providing the necessary equipment to relatives and offering them brief training on how to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 so that they can visit their relatives with dementia in nursing homes safely when it is allowed.
 

“Most comprehensive overview to date”

Alzheimer’s Research UK welcomed the new report. “This is the most comprehensive overview into dementia risk to date, building on previous work by this commission and moving our understanding forward,” Rosa Sancho, PhD, head of research at the charity, said.

“This report underlines the importance of acting at a personal and policy level to reduce dementia risk. With Alzheimer’s Research UK’s Dementia Attitudes Monitor showing just a third of people think it’s possible to reduce their risk of developing dementia, there’s clearly much to do here to increase people’s awareness of the steps they can take,” Dr. Sancho said.

She added that, although there is “no surefire way of preventing dementia,” the best way to keep a brain healthy as it ages is for an individual to stay physically and mentally active, eat a healthy balanced diet, not smoke, drink only within the recommended limits, and keep weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure in check. “With no treatments yet able to slow or stop the onset of dementia, taking action to reduce these risks is an important part of our strategy for tackling the condition,” Dr. Sancho said.

The Lancet Commission is partnered by University College London, the Alzheimer’s Society UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, and Alzheimer’s Research UK, which funded fares, accommodation, and food for the commission meeting but had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.
 

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

Modifying 12 risk factors over the life course could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases, according to an update of the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care.

The original report, published in 2017, identified nine modifiable risk factors that were estimated to be responsible for one-third of dementia cases. The commission has now added three new modifiable risk factors to the list.

“We reconvened the 2017 Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care to identify the evidence for advances likely to have the greatest impact since our 2017 paper,” the authors wrote.

The 2020 report was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2020 and also was  published online July 30 in the Lancet.
 

Alcohol, TBI, air pollution

The three new risk factors that have been added in the latest update are excessive alcohol intake, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and air pollution. The original nine risk factors were not completing secondary education; hypertension; obesity; hearing loss; smoking; depression; physical inactivity; social isolation; and diabetes. Together, these 12 risk factors are estimated to account for 40% of the world’s dementia cases.

“We knew in 2017 when we published our first report with the nine risk factors that they would only be part of the story and that several other factors would likely be involved,” said lead author Gill Livingston, MD, professor, University College London (England). “We now have more published data giving enough evidence” to justify adding the three new factors to the list, she said.

The report includes the following nine recommendations for policymakers and individuals to prevent risk for dementia in the general population:

• Aim to maintain systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or less in midlife from around age 40 years.
• Encourage use of hearing aids for hearing loss, and reduce hearing loss by protecting ears from high noise levels.
• Reduce exposure to air pollution and second-hand tobacco smoke.
• Prevent , particularly by targeting high-risk occupations and transport.
• Prevent alcohol misuse and limit drinking to less than 21 units per week.
• Stop smoking and support individuals to stop smoking, which the authors stress is beneficial at any age.
• Provide all children with primary and secondary education.
• Lead an active life into midlife and possibly later life.
• Reduce obesity and diabetes.

The report also summarizes the evidence supporting the three new risk factors for dementia.

TBI is usually caused by car, motorcycle, and bicycle injuries; military exposures; boxing, horse riding, and other recreational sports; firearms; and falls. The report notes that a single severe TBI is associated in humans and in mouse models with widespread hyperphosphorylated tau pathology. It also cites several nationwide studies that show that TBI is linked with a significantly increased risk for long-term dementia.

“We are not advising against partaking in sports, as playing sports is healthy. But we are urging people to take precautions to protect themselves properly,” Dr. Livingston said.

For excessive alcohol consumption, the report states that an “increasing body of evidence is emerging on alcohol’s complex relationship with cognition and dementia outcomes from a variety of sources including detailed cohorts and large-scale record-based studies.” One French study, which included more than 31 million individuals admitted to the hospital, showed that alcohol use disorders were associated with a threefold increased dementia risk. However, other studies have suggested that moderate drinking may be protective.

“We are not saying it is bad to drink, but we are saying it is bad to drink more than 21 units a week,” Dr. Livingston noted.

On air pollution, the report notes that in animal studies, airborne particulate pollutants have been found to accelerate neurodegenerative processes. Also, high nitrogen dioxide concentrations, fine ambient particulate matter from traffic exhaust, and residential wood burning have been shown in past research to be associated with increased dementia incidence.

“While we need international policy on reducing air pollution, individuals can take some action to reduce their risk,” Dr. Livingston said. For example, she suggested avoiding walking right next to busy roads and instead walking “a few streets back if possible.”
 

Hearing loss

The researchers assessed how much each risk factor contributes to dementia, expressed as the population-attributable fraction (PAF). Hearing loss had the greatest effect, accounting for an estimated 8.2% of dementia cases. This was followed by lower education levels in young people (7.1%) and smoking (5.2%).

Dr. Livingston noted that the evidence that hearing loss is one of the most important risk factors for dementia is very strong. New studies show that correcting hearing loss with hearing aids negates any increased risk.

Hearing loss “has both a high relative risk for dementia and is a common problem, so it contributes a significant amount to dementia cases. This is really something that we can reduce relatively easily by encouraging use of hearing aids. They need to be made more accessible, more comfortable, and more acceptable,” she said.

“This could make a huge difference in reducing dementia cases in the future,” Dr. Livingston added.

Other risk factors for which the evidence base has strengthened since the 2017 report include systolic blood pressure, social interaction, and early-life education.

Dr. Livingston noted that the SPRINT MIND trial showed that aiming for a target systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg reduced risk for future mild cognitive impairment. “Before, we thought under 140 was the target, but now are recommending under 130 to reduce risks of dementia,” she said.

Evidence on social interaction “has been very consistent, and we now have more certainty on this. It is now well established that increased social interaction in midlife reduces dementia in late life,” said Dr. Livingston.

On the benefits of education in the young, she noted that it has been known for some time that education for individuals younger than 11 years is important in reducing later-life dementia. However, it is now thought that education to the age of 20 also makes a difference.

“While keeping the brain active in later years has some positive effects, increasing brain activity in young people seems to be more important. This is probably because of the better plasticity of the brain in the young,” she said.
 

Sleep and diet

Two risk factors that have not made it onto the list are diet and sleep. “While there has also been a lot more data published on nutrition and sleep with regard to dementia in the last few years, we didn’t think the evidence stacked up enough to include these on the list of modifiable risk factors,” Dr. Livingston said.

The report cites studies that suggest that both more sleep and less sleep are associated with increased risk for dementia, which the authors thought did not make “biological sense.” In addition, other underlying factors involved in sleep, such as depression, apathy, and different sleep patterns, may be symptoms of early dementia.

More data have been published on diet and dementia, “but there isn’t any individual vitamin deficit that is associated with the condition. The evidence is quite clear on that,” Dr. Livingston said. “Global diets, such as the Mediterranean or Nordic diets, can probably make a difference, but there doesn’t seem to be any one particular element that is needed,” she noted.

“We just recommend to eat a healthy diet and stay a healthy weight. Diet is very connected to economic circumstances and so very difficult to separate out as a risk factor. We do think it is linked, but we are not convinced enough to put it in the model,” she added.

Among other key information that has become available since 2017, Dr. Livingston highlighted new data showing that dementia is more common in less privileged populations, including Black and minority ethnic groups and low- and middle-income countries.

Although dementia was traditionally considered a disease of high-income countries, that has now been shown not to be the case. “People in low- and middle-income countries are now living longer and so are developing dementia more, and they have higher rates of many of the risk factors, including smoking and low education levels. There is a huge potential for prevention in these countries,” said Dr. Livingston.

She also highlighted new evidence showing that patients with dementia do not do well when admitted to the hospital. “So we need to do more to keep them well at home,” she said.
 

COVID-19 advice

The report also has a section on COVID-19. It points out that patients with dementia are particularly vulnerable to the disease because of their age, multimorbidities, and difficulties in maintaining physical distancing. Death certificates from the United Kingdom indicate that dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the most common underlying conditions (present in 25.6% of all deaths involving COVID-19).

The situation is particularly concerning in care homes. In one U.S. study, nursing home residents living with dementia made up 52% of COVID-19 cases, yet they accounted for 72% of all deaths (increased risk, 1.7), the commission reported.

The authors recommended rigorous public health measures, such as protective equipment and hygiene, not moving staff or residents between care homes, and not admitting new residents when their COVID-19 status is unknown. The report also recommends regular testing of staff in care homes and the provision of oxygen therapy at the home to avoid hospital admission.

It is also important to reduce isolation by providing the necessary equipment to relatives and offering them brief training on how to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 so that they can visit their relatives with dementia in nursing homes safely when it is allowed.
 

“Most comprehensive overview to date”

Alzheimer’s Research UK welcomed the new report. “This is the most comprehensive overview into dementia risk to date, building on previous work by this commission and moving our understanding forward,” Rosa Sancho, PhD, head of research at the charity, said.

“This report underlines the importance of acting at a personal and policy level to reduce dementia risk. With Alzheimer’s Research UK’s Dementia Attitudes Monitor showing just a third of people think it’s possible to reduce their risk of developing dementia, there’s clearly much to do here to increase people’s awareness of the steps they can take,” Dr. Sancho said.

She added that, although there is “no surefire way of preventing dementia,” the best way to keep a brain healthy as it ages is for an individual to stay physically and mentally active, eat a healthy balanced diet, not smoke, drink only within the recommended limits, and keep weight, cholesterol level, and blood pressure in check. “With no treatments yet able to slow or stop the onset of dementia, taking action to reduce these risks is an important part of our strategy for tackling the condition,” Dr. Sancho said.

The Lancet Commission is partnered by University College London, the Alzheimer’s Society UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, and Alzheimer’s Research UK, which funded fares, accommodation, and food for the commission meeting but had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

First responders to the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, who have cognitive impairment show cortical thinning across multiple brain regions, including those commonly affected by Alzheimer’s disease, suggest results from the first structural neuroimaging study conducted in this population. The study clarifies that a neurodegenerative condition is present in first responders who experience cognitive impairment in midlife, which “is incredibly important to know,” said lead author Sean Clouston, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Disease Monitoring.
 

Brain atrophy in midlife

During the 9/11 attack and in its aftermath, WTC responders were exposed to a range of inhaled neurotoxicants, as well as extreme psychosocial stressors. A growing number of WTC responders who are now in their 50s and early 60s are experiencing early cognitive impairment.

Using MRI, the investigators examined cortical thickness (CTX), a surrogate marker for neurodegeneration, in 99 mostly male WTC responders; 48 had cognitive impairment, and 51 did not. The age range of the participants was 45 to 65 years, a range during which cortical atrophy is uncommon in the general population, the researchers noted.

Compared with cognitively normal responders, those with cognitive impairment were found to have reductions in CTX across the whole brain and across 21 of 34 cortical regions, including frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes.

In both cognitively impaired and cognitively unimpaired WTC responders, CTX was reduced in the entorhinal and temporal cortices compared with normative data, but reductions were greater with cognitive impairment. Posttraumatic distress disorder (PTSD) status was not predictive of a reduction in CTX across groups.

Dr. Clouston said the level of reduction in CTX in many responders is similar to that commonly found in patients with dementia and may reflect early-stage dementia occurring in midlife.

Limitations of the study include the small sample size, the cross-sectional design, the unique nature of the exposure, and a lack of a non-WTC external control group.
 

‘Illuminating’ study

Keith N. Fargo, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, called the findings “interesting and illuminating” but cautioned that it is not possible to show cause and effect with this type of study.

“We also don’t know when cortical thinning might have started or how quickly it might be progressing,” Dr. Fargo said in an interview.

He noted that the pattern of cortical thinning is “somewhat consistent with what we see among people who live with high levels of air pollution, which is an emerging risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.”

The Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care added air pollution to its list of modifiable risk factors for dementia, which was recently updated.

Clinicians “need to be aware that their middle-aged 9/11 first responders are at a higher risk level for cognitive impairment, as well as PTSD and depression,” Dr. Fargo said.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Clouston and Dr. Fargo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

First responders to the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, who have cognitive impairment show cortical thinning across multiple brain regions, including those commonly affected by Alzheimer’s disease, suggest results from the first structural neuroimaging study conducted in this population. The study clarifies that a neurodegenerative condition is present in first responders who experience cognitive impairment in midlife, which “is incredibly important to know,” said lead author Sean Clouston, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Disease Monitoring.
 

Brain atrophy in midlife

During the 9/11 attack and in its aftermath, WTC responders were exposed to a range of inhaled neurotoxicants, as well as extreme psychosocial stressors. A growing number of WTC responders who are now in their 50s and early 60s are experiencing early cognitive impairment.

Using MRI, the investigators examined cortical thickness (CTX), a surrogate marker for neurodegeneration, in 99 mostly male WTC responders; 48 had cognitive impairment, and 51 did not. The age range of the participants was 45 to 65 years, a range during which cortical atrophy is uncommon in the general population, the researchers noted.

Compared with cognitively normal responders, those with cognitive impairment were found to have reductions in CTX across the whole brain and across 21 of 34 cortical regions, including frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes.

In both cognitively impaired and cognitively unimpaired WTC responders, CTX was reduced in the entorhinal and temporal cortices compared with normative data, but reductions were greater with cognitive impairment. Posttraumatic distress disorder (PTSD) status was not predictive of a reduction in CTX across groups.

Dr. Clouston said the level of reduction in CTX in many responders is similar to that commonly found in patients with dementia and may reflect early-stage dementia occurring in midlife.

Limitations of the study include the small sample size, the cross-sectional design, the unique nature of the exposure, and a lack of a non-WTC external control group.
 

‘Illuminating’ study

Keith N. Fargo, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, called the findings “interesting and illuminating” but cautioned that it is not possible to show cause and effect with this type of study.

“We also don’t know when cortical thinning might have started or how quickly it might be progressing,” Dr. Fargo said in an interview.

He noted that the pattern of cortical thinning is “somewhat consistent with what we see among people who live with high levels of air pollution, which is an emerging risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.”

The Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care added air pollution to its list of modifiable risk factors for dementia, which was recently updated.

Clinicians “need to be aware that their middle-aged 9/11 first responders are at a higher risk level for cognitive impairment, as well as PTSD and depression,” Dr. Fargo said.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Clouston and Dr. Fargo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

First responders to the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, who have cognitive impairment show cortical thinning across multiple brain regions, including those commonly affected by Alzheimer’s disease, suggest results from the first structural neuroimaging study conducted in this population. The study clarifies that a neurodegenerative condition is present in first responders who experience cognitive impairment in midlife, which “is incredibly important to know,” said lead author Sean Clouston, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Disease Monitoring.
 

Brain atrophy in midlife

During the 9/11 attack and in its aftermath, WTC responders were exposed to a range of inhaled neurotoxicants, as well as extreme psychosocial stressors. A growing number of WTC responders who are now in their 50s and early 60s are experiencing early cognitive impairment.

Using MRI, the investigators examined cortical thickness (CTX), a surrogate marker for neurodegeneration, in 99 mostly male WTC responders; 48 had cognitive impairment, and 51 did not. The age range of the participants was 45 to 65 years, a range during which cortical atrophy is uncommon in the general population, the researchers noted.

Compared with cognitively normal responders, those with cognitive impairment were found to have reductions in CTX across the whole brain and across 21 of 34 cortical regions, including frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes.

In both cognitively impaired and cognitively unimpaired WTC responders, CTX was reduced in the entorhinal and temporal cortices compared with normative data, but reductions were greater with cognitive impairment. Posttraumatic distress disorder (PTSD) status was not predictive of a reduction in CTX across groups.

Dr. Clouston said the level of reduction in CTX in many responders is similar to that commonly found in patients with dementia and may reflect early-stage dementia occurring in midlife.

Limitations of the study include the small sample size, the cross-sectional design, the unique nature of the exposure, and a lack of a non-WTC external control group.
 

‘Illuminating’ study

Keith N. Fargo, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, called the findings “interesting and illuminating” but cautioned that it is not possible to show cause and effect with this type of study.

“We also don’t know when cortical thinning might have started or how quickly it might be progressing,” Dr. Fargo said in an interview.

He noted that the pattern of cortical thinning is “somewhat consistent with what we see among people who live with high levels of air pollution, which is an emerging risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.”

The Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care added air pollution to its list of modifiable risk factors for dementia, which was recently updated.

Clinicians “need to be aware that their middle-aged 9/11 first responders are at a higher risk level for cognitive impairment, as well as PTSD and depression,” Dr. Fargo said.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Clouston and Dr. Fargo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].