The Food and Drug Administration is urging health care providers to immediately stop use of and discard all Eco-Med ultrasound gels and lotions because of risk for bacterial contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc). Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA announced an outbreak of at least 15 Bcc infections associated with contaminated ultrasound gel, and, according to the FDA, Eco-Med ultrasound gels have now been linked to at least 59 infections, 48 of which were blood infections.

On Aug. 4, the Canadian pharmaceutical company, based in Etobicoke, Ont., initiated a voluntary recall of certain lots of EcoGel 200 Ultrasound gel because of contamination with Bcc, but now the FDA warns that all Eco-Med’s ultrasound gels and lotions are at risk.

“The FDA’s determination is based on concerns that the company did not complete its investigation of the issues, the root cause and extent of bacterial contamination was not identified, and multiple products could be affected by manufacturing issues associated with the company’s ultrasound gel (such as inappropriate testing of finished product, inadequate testing of raw materials, and a lack of environmental controls),” the FDA said in a letter to health care providers published Aug. 18.

The letter lists 25 products manufactured by Eco-Med that are sold by distributors in 10 different countries, including the United States and Canada. The list may not be completely comprehensive, the organization notes.

Eco-Med has ceased all operations and is no longer manufacturing or distributing products, according to the FDA statement. Both phone numbers listed for the company were not in operation at the time of reporting.

Beyond stopping use of and discarding Eco-Med products, the FDA recommends that health care providers and facilities stop purchases of Eco-Med products, contact distributors with product disposal questions, and follow professional society guidelines and CDC guidelines for ultrasound use and cleaning products. Providers are encouraged to report adverse events related to Eco-Med ultrasound gels or lotions through MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Though Eco-Med is listed as one of the “prominent players in the ultrasound gel market,” according to a June 2020 report by Grand View Research, the announcement will likely not cause many issues, Lauren Golding, MD, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Ultrasound, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, several companies produce ultrasound gel. Barring unforeseen circumstances, we do not expect this FDA action to have a widespread impact on patients’ access to ultrasound exams in the United States,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is urging health care providers to immediately stop use of and discard all Eco-Med ultrasound gels and lotions because of risk for bacterial contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc). Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA announced an outbreak of at least 15 Bcc infections associated with contaminated ultrasound gel, and, according to the FDA, Eco-Med ultrasound gels have now been linked to at least 59 infections, 48 of which were blood infections.

On Aug. 4, the Canadian pharmaceutical company, based in Etobicoke, Ont., initiated a voluntary recall of certain lots of EcoGel 200 Ultrasound gel because of contamination with Bcc, but now the FDA warns that all Eco-Med’s ultrasound gels and lotions are at risk.

“The FDA’s determination is based on concerns that the company did not complete its investigation of the issues, the root cause and extent of bacterial contamination was not identified, and multiple products could be affected by manufacturing issues associated with the company’s ultrasound gel (such as inappropriate testing of finished product, inadequate testing of raw materials, and a lack of environmental controls),” the FDA said in a letter to health care providers published Aug. 18.

The letter lists 25 products manufactured by Eco-Med that are sold by distributors in 10 different countries, including the United States and Canada. The list may not be completely comprehensive, the organization notes.

Eco-Med has ceased all operations and is no longer manufacturing or distributing products, according to the FDA statement. Both phone numbers listed for the company were not in operation at the time of reporting.

Beyond stopping use of and discarding Eco-Med products, the FDA recommends that health care providers and facilities stop purchases of Eco-Med products, contact distributors with product disposal questions, and follow professional society guidelines and CDC guidelines for ultrasound use and cleaning products. Providers are encouraged to report adverse events related to Eco-Med ultrasound gels or lotions through MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Though Eco-Med is listed as one of the “prominent players in the ultrasound gel market,” according to a June 2020 report by Grand View Research, the announcement will likely not cause many issues, Lauren Golding, MD, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Ultrasound, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, several companies produce ultrasound gel. Barring unforeseen circumstances, we do not expect this FDA action to have a widespread impact on patients’ access to ultrasound exams in the United States,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is urging health care providers to immediately stop use of and discard all Eco-Med ultrasound gels and lotions because of risk for bacterial contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc). Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA announced an outbreak of at least 15 Bcc infections associated with contaminated ultrasound gel, and, according to the FDA, Eco-Med ultrasound gels have now been linked to at least 59 infections, 48 of which were blood infections.

On Aug. 4, the Canadian pharmaceutical company, based in Etobicoke, Ont., initiated a voluntary recall of certain lots of EcoGel 200 Ultrasound gel because of contamination with Bcc, but now the FDA warns that all Eco-Med’s ultrasound gels and lotions are at risk.

“The FDA’s determination is based on concerns that the company did not complete its investigation of the issues, the root cause and extent of bacterial contamination was not identified, and multiple products could be affected by manufacturing issues associated with the company’s ultrasound gel (such as inappropriate testing of finished product, inadequate testing of raw materials, and a lack of environmental controls),” the FDA said in a letter to health care providers published Aug. 18.

The letter lists 25 products manufactured by Eco-Med that are sold by distributors in 10 different countries, including the United States and Canada. The list may not be completely comprehensive, the organization notes.

Eco-Med has ceased all operations and is no longer manufacturing or distributing products, according to the FDA statement. Both phone numbers listed for the company were not in operation at the time of reporting.

Beyond stopping use of and discarding Eco-Med products, the FDA recommends that health care providers and facilities stop purchases of Eco-Med products, contact distributors with product disposal questions, and follow professional society guidelines and CDC guidelines for ultrasound use and cleaning products. Providers are encouraged to report adverse events related to Eco-Med ultrasound gels or lotions through MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Though Eco-Med is listed as one of the “prominent players in the ultrasound gel market,” according to a June 2020 report by Grand View Research, the announcement will likely not cause many issues, Lauren Golding, MD, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Ultrasound, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, several companies produce ultrasound gel. Barring unforeseen circumstances, we do not expect this FDA action to have a widespread impact on patients’ access to ultrasound exams in the United States,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has broadened the indication for dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli), a PD-1 blocking antibody, to include all recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed during or after treatment in cases in which there are no satisfactory alternative options, according to new labeling.

The agency approved the drug in April for dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The labeling notes that dMMR status for both indications must be determined through an FDA-approved test.

The accelerated approval “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory” trial, the labeling says.

The new indication was based results from 209 patients in the GARNET trial. In that trial, the objective response rate was 41.6% across dMMR endometrial and other solid tumors. The complete response rate was 9.1%.

The median duration of response was 34.7 months. For 95% of patients who responded to treatment, the duration of response was 6 months or longer, according to a press release from the maker, GlaxoSmithKline.

In mismatch repair deficiency, tumors contain abnormalities that affect the proper repair of DNA. Prevalence in the United States is estimated to be 14%. The deficiency is particularly common in endometrial, colorectal, and other gastrointestinal cancers, the company said.

The drug was administered in GARNET as a 500-mg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in four doses, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Common adverse events included fatigue/asthenia (42%), anemia (30%), diarrhea (25%), and nausea (22%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included anemia, fatigue/asthenia, increased transaminases, sepsis, and acute kidney injury.

As with other PD-1/PD-L1 blockers, there’s also a possibility of severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions in any organ system either during or after treatment, including immune-mediated pneumonitis, colitis, and hepatitis.

GlaxoSmithKline said it’s studying dostarlimab in earlier lines of treatment for endometrial cancer and in combination with other agents for other advanced/metastatic cancers.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has broadened the indication for dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli), a PD-1 blocking antibody, to include all recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed during or after treatment in cases in which there are no satisfactory alternative options, according to new labeling.

The agency approved the drug in April for dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The labeling notes that dMMR status for both indications must be determined through an FDA-approved test.

The accelerated approval “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory” trial, the labeling says.

The new indication was based results from 209 patients in the GARNET trial. In that trial, the objective response rate was 41.6% across dMMR endometrial and other solid tumors. The complete response rate was 9.1%.

The median duration of response was 34.7 months. For 95% of patients who responded to treatment, the duration of response was 6 months or longer, according to a press release from the maker, GlaxoSmithKline.

In mismatch repair deficiency, tumors contain abnormalities that affect the proper repair of DNA. Prevalence in the United States is estimated to be 14%. The deficiency is particularly common in endometrial, colorectal, and other gastrointestinal cancers, the company said.

The drug was administered in GARNET as a 500-mg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in four doses, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Common adverse events included fatigue/asthenia (42%), anemia (30%), diarrhea (25%), and nausea (22%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included anemia, fatigue/asthenia, increased transaminases, sepsis, and acute kidney injury.

As with other PD-1/PD-L1 blockers, there’s also a possibility of severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions in any organ system either during or after treatment, including immune-mediated pneumonitis, colitis, and hepatitis.

GlaxoSmithKline said it’s studying dostarlimab in earlier lines of treatment for endometrial cancer and in combination with other agents for other advanced/metastatic cancers.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has broadened the indication for dostarlimab-gxly (Jemperli), a PD-1 blocking antibody, to include all recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed during or after treatment in cases in which there are no satisfactory alternative options, according to new labeling.

The agency approved the drug in April for dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer that has progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The labeling notes that dMMR status for both indications must be determined through an FDA-approved test.

The accelerated approval “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory” trial, the labeling says.

The new indication was based results from 209 patients in the GARNET trial. In that trial, the objective response rate was 41.6% across dMMR endometrial and other solid tumors. The complete response rate was 9.1%.

The median duration of response was 34.7 months. For 95% of patients who responded to treatment, the duration of response was 6 months or longer, according to a press release from the maker, GlaxoSmithKline.

In mismatch repair deficiency, tumors contain abnormalities that affect the proper repair of DNA. Prevalence in the United States is estimated to be 14%. The deficiency is particularly common in endometrial, colorectal, and other gastrointestinal cancers, the company said.

The drug was administered in GARNET as a 500-mg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in four doses, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Common adverse events included fatigue/asthenia (42%), anemia (30%), diarrhea (25%), and nausea (22%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included anemia, fatigue/asthenia, increased transaminases, sepsis, and acute kidney injury.

As with other PD-1/PD-L1 blockers, there’s also a possibility of severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions in any organ system either during or after treatment, including immune-mediated pneumonitis, colitis, and hepatitis.

GlaxoSmithKline said it’s studying dostarlimab in earlier lines of treatment for endometrial cancer and in combination with other agents for other advanced/metastatic cancers.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved belzutifan (Welireg) for adult patients with von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) that do not require immediate surgery.

Belzutifan is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor and a first-in-class drug.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the ongoing Study 004, an open-label clinical trial involving 61 patients with VHL-associated RCC with at least one measurable solid tumor localized to the kidney. Enrolled patients had other VHL-associated tumors, including CNS hemangioblastomas and pNETs.

Patients received belzutifan 120 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate, which was the study’s primary endpoint, was 49% in patients with VHL-associated RCC. Additional efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DoR), which was not reached. So far, 56% of responders had DoR of at least 12 months. The median time to response was 8 months.

Among the patients in the study with other VHL-associated non-RCC tumors, 24 patients with CNS hemangioblastomas had an ORR of 63%, and 12 patients with pNETs had an ORR of 83%. Median DoR was not reached,with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations of at least 12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20% of patients), according to the FDA, were decreased hemoglobin, anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea.

Notably, anemia and hypoxia from belzutifan use can be severe. In Study 004, anemia occurred in 90% of patients and 7% had grade 3 anemia. Patients should be transfused as clinically indicated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia are not recommended in patients treated with belzutifan. In Study 004, hypoxia occurred in 1.6% of patients.

Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective, and belzutifan exposure during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm; see full prescribing information for Welireg.

This review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, and used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the entire clinical application. The application was granted priority review by the FDA.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved belzutifan (Welireg) for adult patients with von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) that do not require immediate surgery.

Belzutifan is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor and a first-in-class drug.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the ongoing Study 004, an open-label clinical trial involving 61 patients with VHL-associated RCC with at least one measurable solid tumor localized to the kidney. Enrolled patients had other VHL-associated tumors, including CNS hemangioblastomas and pNETs.

Patients received belzutifan 120 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate, which was the study’s primary endpoint, was 49% in patients with VHL-associated RCC. Additional efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DoR), which was not reached. So far, 56% of responders had DoR of at least 12 months. The median time to response was 8 months.

Among the patients in the study with other VHL-associated non-RCC tumors, 24 patients with CNS hemangioblastomas had an ORR of 63%, and 12 patients with pNETs had an ORR of 83%. Median DoR was not reached,with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations of at least 12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20% of patients), according to the FDA, were decreased hemoglobin, anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea.

Notably, anemia and hypoxia from belzutifan use can be severe. In Study 004, anemia occurred in 90% of patients and 7% had grade 3 anemia. Patients should be transfused as clinically indicated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia are not recommended in patients treated with belzutifan. In Study 004, hypoxia occurred in 1.6% of patients.

Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective, and belzutifan exposure during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm; see full prescribing information for Welireg.

This review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, and used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the entire clinical application. The application was granted priority review by the FDA.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved belzutifan (Welireg) for adult patients with von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) that do not require immediate surgery.

Belzutifan is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor and a first-in-class drug.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the ongoing Study 004, an open-label clinical trial involving 61 patients with VHL-associated RCC with at least one measurable solid tumor localized to the kidney. Enrolled patients had other VHL-associated tumors, including CNS hemangioblastomas and pNETs.

Patients received belzutifan 120 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate, which was the study’s primary endpoint, was 49% in patients with VHL-associated RCC. Additional efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DoR), which was not reached. So far, 56% of responders had DoR of at least 12 months. The median time to response was 8 months.

Among the patients in the study with other VHL-associated non-RCC tumors, 24 patients with CNS hemangioblastomas had an ORR of 63%, and 12 patients with pNETs had an ORR of 83%. Median DoR was not reached,with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations of at least 12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20% of patients), according to the FDA, were decreased hemoglobin, anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea.

Notably, anemia and hypoxia from belzutifan use can be severe. In Study 004, anemia occurred in 90% of patients and 7% had grade 3 anemia. Patients should be transfused as clinically indicated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia are not recommended in patients treated with belzutifan. In Study 004, hypoxia occurred in 1.6% of patients.

Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective, and belzutifan exposure during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm; see full prescribing information for Welireg.

This review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, and used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the entire clinical application. The application was granted priority review by the FDA.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

Service members with posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions may eventually have expanded access to service dogs through legislation recently signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden.

supersizer/E+

The Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers (PAWS) for Veterans Therapy Act (HR 1448) orders the Department of Veterans Affairs to begin a pilot program that over the course of 5 years will examine the utility and effectiveness of service dogs for improving the mental health of military veterans.

The legislation does not set a specific start date for the pilot program, but Rory Diamond, CEO of K9s for Warriors, a nonprofit organization based in Ponte Vedra, Fla., noted that K9s for Warriors and other organizations will be pushing the VA to start in 2022.

“We commend the White House for supporting this bill as a critical step in combating veteran suicide, and we’re confident in the path ahead for service dogs ultimately becoming a covered VA benefit to veterans with PTSD,” Mr. Diamond said in a statement provided to this news organization.

“For servicemembers relying on task-trained service dogs for PTSD, the HR 1448 is a giant leap towards supporting veterans and their service dogs in an equitable way,” Canine Companions, a national nonprofit organization that trains and provides service dogs, said in its own statement.

“It might mean the difference between having a veteran who won’t be here tomorrow and having one that will,” the group added.
 

Invisible wounds of war

In another statement, Bill McCabe, legislative affairs director at the Enlisted Association, said that “now, more than ever, veterans suffering from invisible wounds of war need access to trained service dogs, which have been scientifically proven to help alleviate symptoms of posttraumatic stress,” as well as traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and military sexual trauma.

“We thank President Biden for recognizing veterans need every possible option when seeking mental health treatments, and look forward to working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement this important program,” Mr. McCabe said.

A recent VA report showed that in 2014, 40% of veterans had mental health conditions such as PTSD and substance use. An average of 20 veterans per day died by suicide that year.

Veterans with problems regarding mobility, hearing, and sight, as well as some mental health problems, have been eligible to have costs of veterinary care for service dogs paid by the VA, although the VA has not paid for the training of the animals.

The PAWS Act, which was bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), aims to expand eligibility to those with any mental health problems.

For at least a decade, various service dog and veterans’ organizations have pushed to have the VA expand the service dog benefit. This new law is a “first step,” said Mr. Diamond. “We had to kick open the door,” he said, adding that “the VA has essentially said no for almost 15 years.”

Mr. Diamond noted that there is “overwhelming” evidence showing that service dogs improve quality of life and reduce distress for veterans with PTSD and other diagnoses.
 

‘No excuse’

Results from a VA study showed that suicidal ideation was reduced in veterans who were paired with service dogs, compared with veterans paired with emotional support dogs. The study, which was made public in March, found no reduction in overall disability, according to a report by Military.com.

K9s for Warriors cites numerous other studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that service dogs reduce PTSD symptoms, especially hypervigilance.

“There really is no excuse not to have the VA engaged in helping veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress who are extremely high risk of suicide to get a lifesaving service dog,” Mr. Diamond said.

His organization has paired 700 veterans suffering from TBI, PTSD, or military sexual trauma with a service dog. The organization provides a 3-week training program for the veteran and his or her dog.

Although about 200 of the graduates have been eligible to receive coverage from the VA for veterinary care for the dogs, it requires a lot of paperwork, and the criteria for who can be certified to receive that benefit are somewhat vague, Mr. Diamond noted.

Under current policy, the dog and veteran must have successfully completed a training program offered by an organization accredited by Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation. The VA does not pay for the training or the dog – which at K9s for Warriors costs about $25,000.

The new pilot program will enable eligible veterans to receive dog training instruction from accredited nonprofit service dog training organizations, and it will give them the opportunity to adopt a dog that they actively assisted in training.

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

Service members with posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions may eventually have expanded access to service dogs through legislation recently signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden.

supersizer/E+

The Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers (PAWS) for Veterans Therapy Act (HR 1448) orders the Department of Veterans Affairs to begin a pilot program that over the course of 5 years will examine the utility and effectiveness of service dogs for improving the mental health of military veterans.

The legislation does not set a specific start date for the pilot program, but Rory Diamond, CEO of K9s for Warriors, a nonprofit organization based in Ponte Vedra, Fla., noted that K9s for Warriors and other organizations will be pushing the VA to start in 2022.

“We commend the White House for supporting this bill as a critical step in combating veteran suicide, and we’re confident in the path ahead for service dogs ultimately becoming a covered VA benefit to veterans with PTSD,” Mr. Diamond said in a statement provided to this news organization.

“For servicemembers relying on task-trained service dogs for PTSD, the HR 1448 is a giant leap towards supporting veterans and their service dogs in an equitable way,” Canine Companions, a national nonprofit organization that trains and provides service dogs, said in its own statement.

“It might mean the difference between having a veteran who won’t be here tomorrow and having one that will,” the group added.
 

Invisible wounds of war

In another statement, Bill McCabe, legislative affairs director at the Enlisted Association, said that “now, more than ever, veterans suffering from invisible wounds of war need access to trained service dogs, which have been scientifically proven to help alleviate symptoms of posttraumatic stress,” as well as traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and military sexual trauma.

“We thank President Biden for recognizing veterans need every possible option when seeking mental health treatments, and look forward to working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement this important program,” Mr. McCabe said.

A recent VA report showed that in 2014, 40% of veterans had mental health conditions such as PTSD and substance use. An average of 20 veterans per day died by suicide that year.

Veterans with problems regarding mobility, hearing, and sight, as well as some mental health problems, have been eligible to have costs of veterinary care for service dogs paid by the VA, although the VA has not paid for the training of the animals.

The PAWS Act, which was bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), aims to expand eligibility to those with any mental health problems.

For at least a decade, various service dog and veterans’ organizations have pushed to have the VA expand the service dog benefit. This new law is a “first step,” said Mr. Diamond. “We had to kick open the door,” he said, adding that “the VA has essentially said no for almost 15 years.”

Mr. Diamond noted that there is “overwhelming” evidence showing that service dogs improve quality of life and reduce distress for veterans with PTSD and other diagnoses.
 

‘No excuse’

Results from a VA study showed that suicidal ideation was reduced in veterans who were paired with service dogs, compared with veterans paired with emotional support dogs. The study, which was made public in March, found no reduction in overall disability, according to a report by Military.com.

K9s for Warriors cites numerous other studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that service dogs reduce PTSD symptoms, especially hypervigilance.

“There really is no excuse not to have the VA engaged in helping veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress who are extremely high risk of suicide to get a lifesaving service dog,” Mr. Diamond said.

His organization has paired 700 veterans suffering from TBI, PTSD, or military sexual trauma with a service dog. The organization provides a 3-week training program for the veteran and his or her dog.

Although about 200 of the graduates have been eligible to receive coverage from the VA for veterinary care for the dogs, it requires a lot of paperwork, and the criteria for who can be certified to receive that benefit are somewhat vague, Mr. Diamond noted.

Under current policy, the dog and veteran must have successfully completed a training program offered by an organization accredited by Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation. The VA does not pay for the training or the dog – which at K9s for Warriors costs about $25,000.

The new pilot program will enable eligible veterans to receive dog training instruction from accredited nonprofit service dog training organizations, and it will give them the opportunity to adopt a dog that they actively assisted in training.

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

Service members with posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions may eventually have expanded access to service dogs through legislation recently signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden.

supersizer/E+

The Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers (PAWS) for Veterans Therapy Act (HR 1448) orders the Department of Veterans Affairs to begin a pilot program that over the course of 5 years will examine the utility and effectiveness of service dogs for improving the mental health of military veterans.

The legislation does not set a specific start date for the pilot program, but Rory Diamond, CEO of K9s for Warriors, a nonprofit organization based in Ponte Vedra, Fla., noted that K9s for Warriors and other organizations will be pushing the VA to start in 2022.

“We commend the White House for supporting this bill as a critical step in combating veteran suicide, and we’re confident in the path ahead for service dogs ultimately becoming a covered VA benefit to veterans with PTSD,” Mr. Diamond said in a statement provided to this news organization.

“For servicemembers relying on task-trained service dogs for PTSD, the HR 1448 is a giant leap towards supporting veterans and their service dogs in an equitable way,” Canine Companions, a national nonprofit organization that trains and provides service dogs, said in its own statement.

“It might mean the difference between having a veteran who won’t be here tomorrow and having one that will,” the group added.
 

Invisible wounds of war

In another statement, Bill McCabe, legislative affairs director at the Enlisted Association, said that “now, more than ever, veterans suffering from invisible wounds of war need access to trained service dogs, which have been scientifically proven to help alleviate symptoms of posttraumatic stress,” as well as traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and military sexual trauma.

“We thank President Biden for recognizing veterans need every possible option when seeking mental health treatments, and look forward to working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement this important program,” Mr. McCabe said.

A recent VA report showed that in 2014, 40% of veterans had mental health conditions such as PTSD and substance use. An average of 20 veterans per day died by suicide that year.

Veterans with problems regarding mobility, hearing, and sight, as well as some mental health problems, have been eligible to have costs of veterinary care for service dogs paid by the VA, although the VA has not paid for the training of the animals.

The PAWS Act, which was bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), aims to expand eligibility to those with any mental health problems.

For at least a decade, various service dog and veterans’ organizations have pushed to have the VA expand the service dog benefit. This new law is a “first step,” said Mr. Diamond. “We had to kick open the door,” he said, adding that “the VA has essentially said no for almost 15 years.”

Mr. Diamond noted that there is “overwhelming” evidence showing that service dogs improve quality of life and reduce distress for veterans with PTSD and other diagnoses.
 

‘No excuse’

Results from a VA study showed that suicidal ideation was reduced in veterans who were paired with service dogs, compared with veterans paired with emotional support dogs. The study, which was made public in March, found no reduction in overall disability, according to a report by Military.com.

K9s for Warriors cites numerous other studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that service dogs reduce PTSD symptoms, especially hypervigilance.

“There really is no excuse not to have the VA engaged in helping veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress who are extremely high risk of suicide to get a lifesaving service dog,” Mr. Diamond said.

His organization has paired 700 veterans suffering from TBI, PTSD, or military sexual trauma with a service dog. The organization provides a 3-week training program for the veteran and his or her dog.

Although about 200 of the graduates have been eligible to receive coverage from the VA for veterinary care for the dogs, it requires a lot of paperwork, and the criteria for who can be certified to receive that benefit are somewhat vague, Mr. Diamond noted.

Under current policy, the dog and veteran must have successfully completed a training program offered by an organization accredited by Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation. The VA does not pay for the training or the dog – which at K9s for Warriors costs about $25,000.

The new pilot program will enable eligible veterans to receive dog training instruction from accredited nonprofit service dog training organizations, and it will give them the opportunity to adopt a dog that they actively assisted in training.

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

Background: Afib is often asymp­tomatic until a patient presents with an acute stroke. Current screening strategies for Afib fail to detect a large portion of patients, especially since most Afib is paroxysmal. Better screening strategies that increase diagnostic yield are needed.

The authors acknowledged many limitations including: The algorithm used had a sensitivity of 95%, there is no valid cutoffs for time-in-Afib, and the simulations assumed 100% patient compliance.

Bottom line: Screening for atrial fibrillation improves by increasing the duration of, spacing between, and number of screenings.

Citation: Diederichsen SZ et al. Comprehensive evaluation of rhythm monitoring strategies in screening for atrial fibrillation: Insights from patients at risk long-term monitored with implantable loop recorder. Circulation. 2020 May 12;141(19):1510-22.

Dr. Mastbergen is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Afib is often asymp­tomatic until a patient presents with an acute stroke. Current screening strategies for Afib fail to detect a large portion of patients, especially since most Afib is paroxysmal. Better screening strategies that increase diagnostic yield are needed.

The authors acknowledged many limitations including: The algorithm used had a sensitivity of 95%, there is no valid cutoffs for time-in-Afib, and the simulations assumed 100% patient compliance.

Bottom line: Screening for atrial fibrillation improves by increasing the duration of, spacing between, and number of screenings.

Citation: Diederichsen SZ et al. Comprehensive evaluation of rhythm monitoring strategies in screening for atrial fibrillation: Insights from patients at risk long-term monitored with implantable loop recorder. Circulation. 2020 May 12;141(19):1510-22.

Dr. Mastbergen is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Afib is often asymp­tomatic until a patient presents with an acute stroke. Current screening strategies for Afib fail to detect a large portion of patients, especially since most Afib is paroxysmal. Better screening strategies that increase diagnostic yield are needed.

The authors acknowledged many limitations including: The algorithm used had a sensitivity of 95%, there is no valid cutoffs for time-in-Afib, and the simulations assumed 100% patient compliance.

Bottom line: Screening for atrial fibrillation improves by increasing the duration of, spacing between, and number of screenings.

Citation: Diederichsen SZ et al. Comprehensive evaluation of rhythm monitoring strategies in screening for atrial fibrillation: Insights from patients at risk long-term monitored with implantable loop recorder. Circulation. 2020 May 12;141(19):1510-22.

Dr. Mastbergen is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

After an extensive review of the present and potential conditions affecting in-person participation, CHEST 2021 will be fully online again this year. Our goal is to make attending CHEST 2021 as accessible as possible for the entire chest medicine community. Make sure to join your colleagues online for the most exciting event in chest medicine, October 17-20.

After an extensive review of the present and potential conditions affecting in-person participation, CHEST 2021 will be fully online again this year. Our goal is to make attending CHEST 2021 as accessible as possible for the entire chest medicine community. Make sure to join your colleagues online for the most exciting event in chest medicine, October 17-20.

After an extensive review of the present and potential conditions affecting in-person participation, CHEST 2021 will be fully online again this year. Our goal is to make attending CHEST 2021 as accessible as possible for the entire chest medicine community. Make sure to join your colleagues online for the most exciting event in chest medicine, October 17-20.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Updated August 30, 2021

The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin achieved in EMPEROR-Preserved what no other agent could previously do: unequivocally cut the incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

MDedge News

Treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) led to a significant 21% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), compared with placebo, among 5,988 randomized patients with HFpEF during a median 26 months of follow-up, proving that patients with HFpEF finally have a treatment that gives them clinically meaningful benefit, and paving the way to an abrupt change in management of these patients, experts said.

“This is the first trial to show unequivocal benefits of any drug on major heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, PhD, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The 21% relative reduction, which reflected a cut in the absolute rate of the trial’s primary composite endpoint of 3.3% compared with placebo, was driven mainly by a significant 27% relative reduction in the incidence of HHF (P < .001). Empagliflozin treatment, on top of standard therapy for patients with HFpEF, also resulted in a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular death, but it had no discernible impact on the rate of death from any cause, said Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology at Charité Medical University in Berlin.

Concurrently with his talk at the meeting, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Practice will change ‘quickly’

“This will definitely change our practice, and quite quickly,” said Carlos Aguiar, MD, chair of the Advanced Heart Failure and Heart Transplantation Unit at Hospital Santa Cruz in Carnaxide, Portugal, who was not involved in the study.

Transition to routine use of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF should be swift because it has already become a mainstay of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on evidence for empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Reduced. A second sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2 ) inhibitor, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), is also an option for treating HFrEF based on results in the DAPA-HF trial, and the DELIVER trial, still in progress, is testing dapagliflozin as a HFpEF treatment in about 6,000 patients, with results expected in 2022.

About half of the patients in EMPEROR-Preserved had diabetes, and the treatment effects on HFpEF were similar regardless of patients’ diabetes status. Empagliflozin, like other members of the SGLT2 inhibitor class, boosts urinary excretion of glucose and received initial regulatory approval as an agent for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Empagliflozin also has U.S.-approved marketing indications for treating patients with HFrEF whether or not they also have diabetes, and for reducing cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“We already use this drug class in cardiovascular medicine and to treat patients with type 2 diabetes, and we have been eager to find a treatment for patients with HFpEF. This is something that will be really significant,” said Dr. Aguiar.

Heart failure clinicians have “become familiar prescribing” SGLT2 inhibitors following approval of HFrEF indications for some of these agents, noted Mary Norine Walsh, MD, a heart failure specialist with Ascension Medical Group in Indianapolis. The new results “are good news because there have been so few options” for patients with HFpEF, she said in an interview.

EMPEROR-Preserved “is the first phase 3 clinical trial that exclusively enrolled patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to meet its primary outcome,” and the results “represent a major win against a medical condition that had previously proven formidable,” Mark H. Drazner, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the published results.

The trial’s findings “should contribute to a change in clinical practice given the paucity of therapeutic options available for patients with HFpEF,” wrote Dr. Drazner, a heart failure specialist who is professor and clinical chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Theresa A, McDonagh, MD, MBChB, who chaired the panel that just released revised guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing patients with heart failure, predicted that empagliflozin treatment for patients with HFpEF will soon show up in guidelines. It will likely receive a “should be considered” ranking despite being a single study because of the impressive size of the treatment effect and lack of well-supported alternative treatments, she commented as a discussant of the trial during its presentation at the congress. If the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin shows a similar effect, the recommendation would likely become even stronger, added Dr. McDonagh, a heart failure specialist and professor of cardiology at King’s College, London.

More women enrolled than ever before

EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled adults with chronic HFpEF in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% starting in 2017 at more than 600 sites in more than 20 countries worldwide including the United States. As background therapy, more than 80% of patients received treatment with either an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (in some instances in the form of sacubitril/valsartan), more than 80% were on a beta-blocker, and about a third were taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, making them “very well treated HFpEF patients,” Dr. Anker said.

One of the most notable features of enrollment was that 45% of participants were women, giving this trial the highest inclusion of women compared with all prior studies in patients with HFpEF or with HFrEF, said Dr. Walsh. “HFpEF is very prevalent in woman,” she noted, and having this high participation rate of women in the study increases its relevance to these patients. “It’s important to be able to tell women that patients like you were in the study so we can more easily apply the lessons from the trial to you. That can’t be stressed enough,” she said.

The primary outcome occurred in 415 (13.8%) of the 2,997 patients in the empagliflozin group and in 511 (17.1%) of 2,991 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.90; P < .001).

The study showed a safety profile consistent with prior experience with empagliflozin, Dr. Anker added.

Pooling EMPEROR-Preserved with EMPEROR-Reduced

The investigators who ran EMPEROR-Preserved designed the trial to closely parallel the EMPEROR-Reduced trial in patients with HFrEF, and they included a prespecified analysis (EMPEROR-Pooled) that combined the more than 9,700 patients in the two studies. This showed a consistent and robust benefit from empagliflozin for reducing HHF across a wide spectrum of patients with heart failure, ranging from patients with left ventricular ejection fractions of less than 25% to patients with ejection fractions as high as 64%. However, the analysis also showed that patients with ejection fractions of 65% or greater received no discernible benefit from empagliflozin, Milton Packer, MD, reported in a separate talk at the congress.

MDedge News

“The findings demonstrate the benefits of empagliflozin across a broad range of patients with heart failure who have ejection fractions of less than 60%-65%,” said Dr. Packer, a researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

This apparent attenuation of an effect at higher ejection fractions “has been observed in other HFpEF trials, most recently in the PARAGON-HF trial” of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), he noted. Additional analyses led by Dr. Packer showed that in patients with ejection fractions below 65% the HHF benefit from empagliflozin consistently surpassed the benefit seen with sacubitril/valsartan in PARAGON-HF. But he recommended using both drugs in patients with HFpEF and an ejection fraction up to about 60%.

“If I had a patient with HFpEF I would use both drugs as well as beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists,” he said during a press briefing.

Another finding from analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials together was that patients with reduced ejection fractions showed a significant 49% relative reduction in the incidence of serious renal outcomes, but this effect was completely blunted in EMPEROR-Preserved.

“Ejection fraction influences the effects of empagliflozin on major renal outcomes,” concluded Dr. Packer in a report on this analysis published simultaneously with the main EMPEROR-Preserved findings (N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2112411). “These data from the EMPEROR trials are unique. We have no comparable data” from any of the other reported studies of SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Eli Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from several other companies, and he has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and Vifor. Dr. Packer has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from numerous other companies. Dr. McDonagh has has recent financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Cprpus, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor. Dr. Aguiar and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Updated August 30, 2021

The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin achieved in EMPEROR-Preserved what no other agent could previously do: unequivocally cut the incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

MDedge News

Treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) led to a significant 21% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), compared with placebo, among 5,988 randomized patients with HFpEF during a median 26 months of follow-up, proving that patients with HFpEF finally have a treatment that gives them clinically meaningful benefit, and paving the way to an abrupt change in management of these patients, experts said.

“This is the first trial to show unequivocal benefits of any drug on major heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, PhD, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The 21% relative reduction, which reflected a cut in the absolute rate of the trial’s primary composite endpoint of 3.3% compared with placebo, was driven mainly by a significant 27% relative reduction in the incidence of HHF (P < .001). Empagliflozin treatment, on top of standard therapy for patients with HFpEF, also resulted in a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular death, but it had no discernible impact on the rate of death from any cause, said Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology at Charité Medical University in Berlin.

Concurrently with his talk at the meeting, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Practice will change ‘quickly’

“This will definitely change our practice, and quite quickly,” said Carlos Aguiar, MD, chair of the Advanced Heart Failure and Heart Transplantation Unit at Hospital Santa Cruz in Carnaxide, Portugal, who was not involved in the study.

Transition to routine use of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF should be swift because it has already become a mainstay of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on evidence for empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Reduced. A second sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2 ) inhibitor, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), is also an option for treating HFrEF based on results in the DAPA-HF trial, and the DELIVER trial, still in progress, is testing dapagliflozin as a HFpEF treatment in about 6,000 patients, with results expected in 2022.

About half of the patients in EMPEROR-Preserved had diabetes, and the treatment effects on HFpEF were similar regardless of patients’ diabetes status. Empagliflozin, like other members of the SGLT2 inhibitor class, boosts urinary excretion of glucose and received initial regulatory approval as an agent for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Empagliflozin also has U.S.-approved marketing indications for treating patients with HFrEF whether or not they also have diabetes, and for reducing cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“We already use this drug class in cardiovascular medicine and to treat patients with type 2 diabetes, and we have been eager to find a treatment for patients with HFpEF. This is something that will be really significant,” said Dr. Aguiar.

Heart failure clinicians have “become familiar prescribing” SGLT2 inhibitors following approval of HFrEF indications for some of these agents, noted Mary Norine Walsh, MD, a heart failure specialist with Ascension Medical Group in Indianapolis. The new results “are good news because there have been so few options” for patients with HFpEF, she said in an interview.

EMPEROR-Preserved “is the first phase 3 clinical trial that exclusively enrolled patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to meet its primary outcome,” and the results “represent a major win against a medical condition that had previously proven formidable,” Mark H. Drazner, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the published results.

The trial’s findings “should contribute to a change in clinical practice given the paucity of therapeutic options available for patients with HFpEF,” wrote Dr. Drazner, a heart failure specialist who is professor and clinical chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Theresa A, McDonagh, MD, MBChB, who chaired the panel that just released revised guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing patients with heart failure, predicted that empagliflozin treatment for patients with HFpEF will soon show up in guidelines. It will likely receive a “should be considered” ranking despite being a single study because of the impressive size of the treatment effect and lack of well-supported alternative treatments, she commented as a discussant of the trial during its presentation at the congress. If the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin shows a similar effect, the recommendation would likely become even stronger, added Dr. McDonagh, a heart failure specialist and professor of cardiology at King’s College, London.

More women enrolled than ever before

EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled adults with chronic HFpEF in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% starting in 2017 at more than 600 sites in more than 20 countries worldwide including the United States. As background therapy, more than 80% of patients received treatment with either an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (in some instances in the form of sacubitril/valsartan), more than 80% were on a beta-blocker, and about a third were taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, making them “very well treated HFpEF patients,” Dr. Anker said.

One of the most notable features of enrollment was that 45% of participants were women, giving this trial the highest inclusion of women compared with all prior studies in patients with HFpEF or with HFrEF, said Dr. Walsh. “HFpEF is very prevalent in woman,” she noted, and having this high participation rate of women in the study increases its relevance to these patients. “It’s important to be able to tell women that patients like you were in the study so we can more easily apply the lessons from the trial to you. That can’t be stressed enough,” she said.

The primary outcome occurred in 415 (13.8%) of the 2,997 patients in the empagliflozin group and in 511 (17.1%) of 2,991 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.90; P < .001).

The study showed a safety profile consistent with prior experience with empagliflozin, Dr. Anker added.

Pooling EMPEROR-Preserved with EMPEROR-Reduced

The investigators who ran EMPEROR-Preserved designed the trial to closely parallel the EMPEROR-Reduced trial in patients with HFrEF, and they included a prespecified analysis (EMPEROR-Pooled) that combined the more than 9,700 patients in the two studies. This showed a consistent and robust benefit from empagliflozin for reducing HHF across a wide spectrum of patients with heart failure, ranging from patients with left ventricular ejection fractions of less than 25% to patients with ejection fractions as high as 64%. However, the analysis also showed that patients with ejection fractions of 65% or greater received no discernible benefit from empagliflozin, Milton Packer, MD, reported in a separate talk at the congress.

MDedge News

“The findings demonstrate the benefits of empagliflozin across a broad range of patients with heart failure who have ejection fractions of less than 60%-65%,” said Dr. Packer, a researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

This apparent attenuation of an effect at higher ejection fractions “has been observed in other HFpEF trials, most recently in the PARAGON-HF trial” of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), he noted. Additional analyses led by Dr. Packer showed that in patients with ejection fractions below 65% the HHF benefit from empagliflozin consistently surpassed the benefit seen with sacubitril/valsartan in PARAGON-HF. But he recommended using both drugs in patients with HFpEF and an ejection fraction up to about 60%.

“If I had a patient with HFpEF I would use both drugs as well as beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists,” he said during a press briefing.

Another finding from analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials together was that patients with reduced ejection fractions showed a significant 49% relative reduction in the incidence of serious renal outcomes, but this effect was completely blunted in EMPEROR-Preserved.

“Ejection fraction influences the effects of empagliflozin on major renal outcomes,” concluded Dr. Packer in a report on this analysis published simultaneously with the main EMPEROR-Preserved findings (N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2112411). “These data from the EMPEROR trials are unique. We have no comparable data” from any of the other reported studies of SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Eli Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from several other companies, and he has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and Vifor. Dr. Packer has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from numerous other companies. Dr. McDonagh has has recent financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Cprpus, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor. Dr. Aguiar and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Updated August 30, 2021

The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin achieved in EMPEROR-Preserved what no other agent could previously do: unequivocally cut the incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

MDedge News

Treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) led to a significant 21% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), compared with placebo, among 5,988 randomized patients with HFpEF during a median 26 months of follow-up, proving that patients with HFpEF finally have a treatment that gives them clinically meaningful benefit, and paving the way to an abrupt change in management of these patients, experts said.

“This is the first trial to show unequivocal benefits of any drug on major heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, PhD, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The 21% relative reduction, which reflected a cut in the absolute rate of the trial’s primary composite endpoint of 3.3% compared with placebo, was driven mainly by a significant 27% relative reduction in the incidence of HHF (P < .001). Empagliflozin treatment, on top of standard therapy for patients with HFpEF, also resulted in a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular death, but it had no discernible impact on the rate of death from any cause, said Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology at Charité Medical University in Berlin.

Concurrently with his talk at the meeting, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Practice will change ‘quickly’

“This will definitely change our practice, and quite quickly,” said Carlos Aguiar, MD, chair of the Advanced Heart Failure and Heart Transplantation Unit at Hospital Santa Cruz in Carnaxide, Portugal, who was not involved in the study.

Transition to routine use of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF should be swift because it has already become a mainstay of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on evidence for empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Reduced. A second sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2 ) inhibitor, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), is also an option for treating HFrEF based on results in the DAPA-HF trial, and the DELIVER trial, still in progress, is testing dapagliflozin as a HFpEF treatment in about 6,000 patients, with results expected in 2022.

About half of the patients in EMPEROR-Preserved had diabetes, and the treatment effects on HFpEF were similar regardless of patients’ diabetes status. Empagliflozin, like other members of the SGLT2 inhibitor class, boosts urinary excretion of glucose and received initial regulatory approval as an agent for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Empagliflozin also has U.S.-approved marketing indications for treating patients with HFrEF whether or not they also have diabetes, and for reducing cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“We already use this drug class in cardiovascular medicine and to treat patients with type 2 diabetes, and we have been eager to find a treatment for patients with HFpEF. This is something that will be really significant,” said Dr. Aguiar.

Heart failure clinicians have “become familiar prescribing” SGLT2 inhibitors following approval of HFrEF indications for some of these agents, noted Mary Norine Walsh, MD, a heart failure specialist with Ascension Medical Group in Indianapolis. The new results “are good news because there have been so few options” for patients with HFpEF, she said in an interview.

EMPEROR-Preserved “is the first phase 3 clinical trial that exclusively enrolled patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to meet its primary outcome,” and the results “represent a major win against a medical condition that had previously proven formidable,” Mark H. Drazner, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the published results.

The trial’s findings “should contribute to a change in clinical practice given the paucity of therapeutic options available for patients with HFpEF,” wrote Dr. Drazner, a heart failure specialist who is professor and clinical chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Theresa A, McDonagh, MD, MBChB, who chaired the panel that just released revised guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing patients with heart failure, predicted that empagliflozin treatment for patients with HFpEF will soon show up in guidelines. It will likely receive a “should be considered” ranking despite being a single study because of the impressive size of the treatment effect and lack of well-supported alternative treatments, she commented as a discussant of the trial during its presentation at the congress. If the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin shows a similar effect, the recommendation would likely become even stronger, added Dr. McDonagh, a heart failure specialist and professor of cardiology at King’s College, London.

More women enrolled than ever before

EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled adults with chronic HFpEF in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% starting in 2017 at more than 600 sites in more than 20 countries worldwide including the United States. As background therapy, more than 80% of patients received treatment with either an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (in some instances in the form of sacubitril/valsartan), more than 80% were on a beta-blocker, and about a third were taking a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, making them “very well treated HFpEF patients,” Dr. Anker said.

One of the most notable features of enrollment was that 45% of participants were women, giving this trial the highest inclusion of women compared with all prior studies in patients with HFpEF or with HFrEF, said Dr. Walsh. “HFpEF is very prevalent in woman,” she noted, and having this high participation rate of women in the study increases its relevance to these patients. “It’s important to be able to tell women that patients like you were in the study so we can more easily apply the lessons from the trial to you. That can’t be stressed enough,” she said.

The primary outcome occurred in 415 (13.8%) of the 2,997 patients in the empagliflozin group and in 511 (17.1%) of 2,991 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.90; P < .001).

The study showed a safety profile consistent with prior experience with empagliflozin, Dr. Anker added.

Pooling EMPEROR-Preserved with EMPEROR-Reduced

The investigators who ran EMPEROR-Preserved designed the trial to closely parallel the EMPEROR-Reduced trial in patients with HFrEF, and they included a prespecified analysis (EMPEROR-Pooled) that combined the more than 9,700 patients in the two studies. This showed a consistent and robust benefit from empagliflozin for reducing HHF across a wide spectrum of patients with heart failure, ranging from patients with left ventricular ejection fractions of less than 25% to patients with ejection fractions as high as 64%. However, the analysis also showed that patients with ejection fractions of 65% or greater received no discernible benefit from empagliflozin, Milton Packer, MD, reported in a separate talk at the congress.

MDedge News

“The findings demonstrate the benefits of empagliflozin across a broad range of patients with heart failure who have ejection fractions of less than 60%-65%,” said Dr. Packer, a researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

This apparent attenuation of an effect at higher ejection fractions “has been observed in other HFpEF trials, most recently in the PARAGON-HF trial” of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), he noted. Additional analyses led by Dr. Packer showed that in patients with ejection fractions below 65% the HHF benefit from empagliflozin consistently surpassed the benefit seen with sacubitril/valsartan in PARAGON-HF. But he recommended using both drugs in patients with HFpEF and an ejection fraction up to about 60%.

“If I had a patient with HFpEF I would use both drugs as well as beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists,” he said during a press briefing.

Another finding from analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials together was that patients with reduced ejection fractions showed a significant 49% relative reduction in the incidence of serious renal outcomes, but this effect was completely blunted in EMPEROR-Preserved.

“Ejection fraction influences the effects of empagliflozin on major renal outcomes,” concluded Dr. Packer in a report on this analysis published simultaneously with the main EMPEROR-Preserved findings (N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2112411). “These data from the EMPEROR trials are unique. We have no comparable data” from any of the other reported studies of SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Eli Lilly, the two companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from several other companies, and he has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and Vifor. Dr. Packer has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from numerous other companies. Dr. McDonagh has has recent financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Cprpus, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor. Dr. Aguiar and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

“By learning you will teach, by teaching you will learn.”

–Latin proverb

The COVID-19 pandemic thrust hospitalists into uncertain clinical situations where scientific evidence was rapidly changing and expert consensus was not always available. Amidst this, our learners were eager to better understand this new disease and how to properly care for patients. This forced hospitalists, as educators, to face the question: “How do you teach when you don’t have the answers?”

Teaching outside a hospitalist’s expertise existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to exist. It is a challenge encountered frequently by both junior and senior faculty across all disciplines, yet is rarely discussed.¹ However, great learning can still occur when we teach at the edge of our comfort zones.

You don’t need to be an expert to be a great teacher. Although most educators know this, we often fear that disclosing our knowledge limitations exposes our weaknesses. But a successful start to the learning journey begins with establishing trust and confidence with your learners. Remaining authentic in your knowledge base will inspire more credibility than false pretenses of content mastery. Phrases like, “This topic is new for me as well. Here’s what I do know and what I don’t know” or “What a great question. I wish I had a great answer. Let me get back to you” set a standard for honesty and reduce teaching pressures. In turn, learners will be more comfortable acknowledging their own uncertainties and will be more likely to voice their hesitations or ask questions on rounds.

The field of medicine is steeped in hierarchical structure, where the attending is assumed to have the most knowledge. But this may not always be true, as learners are often more up to date on a subject than the attending. By reexamining traditional hierarchies and instead considering ourselves as part of a learning team, we can promote a more positive educational climate.

When a learner asks a question that you don’t have an answer for, the response “Great question. I can tell you what I think, but I’m interested in first hearing your thoughts” reflects that you respect your learners and their skills and experiences. You can also ask them to do a literature review and report back to you and the team the next morning. By inverting the hierarchy, you are teaching humility, adaptability, and shared responsibility, as well as demonstrating the skills of being a lifelong learner.²

As educators, we often hold ourselves to unrealistic expectations of being omniscient knowledge vessels. In times of crisis or uncertainty, teaching about how to learn and where to learn become just as important as what to learn. Invite learners to observe how you navigate ambiguity. For example, I recently interacted with a colleague on an unfamiliar case. She said, “Dr Wang, I don’t know much about malaria. Can you share with me what made you consider this diagnosis?” Additionally, admitting to learners when you have made an error not only clarifies their learning, but also role models continuous personal improvement.

By modeling humility by acknowledging our own limits, respecting our learners’ knowledge and experiences, and demonstrating how we manage uncertainty, we can enhance the learning environment and inspire our learners.

“By learning you will teach, by teaching you will learn.”

–Latin proverb

The COVID-19 pandemic thrust hospitalists into uncertain clinical situations where scientific evidence was rapidly changing and expert consensus was not always available. Amidst this, our learners were eager to better understand this new disease and how to properly care for patients. This forced hospitalists, as educators, to face the question: “How do you teach when you don’t have the answers?”

Teaching outside a hospitalist’s expertise existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to exist. It is a challenge encountered frequently by both junior and senior faculty across all disciplines, yet is rarely discussed.¹ However, great learning can still occur when we teach at the edge of our comfort zones.

You don’t need to be an expert to be a great teacher. Although most educators know this, we often fear that disclosing our knowledge limitations exposes our weaknesses. But a successful start to the learning journey begins with establishing trust and confidence with your learners. Remaining authentic in your knowledge base will inspire more credibility than false pretenses of content mastery. Phrases like, “This topic is new for me as well. Here’s what I do know and what I don’t know” or “What a great question. I wish I had a great answer. Let me get back to you” set a standard for honesty and reduce teaching pressures. In turn, learners will be more comfortable acknowledging their own uncertainties and will be more likely to voice their hesitations or ask questions on rounds.

The field of medicine is steeped in hierarchical structure, where the attending is assumed to have the most knowledge. But this may not always be true, as learners are often more up to date on a subject than the attending. By reexamining traditional hierarchies and instead considering ourselves as part of a learning team, we can promote a more positive educational climate.

When a learner asks a question that you don’t have an answer for, the response “Great question. I can tell you what I think, but I’m interested in first hearing your thoughts” reflects that you respect your learners and their skills and experiences. You can also ask them to do a literature review and report back to you and the team the next morning. By inverting the hierarchy, you are teaching humility, adaptability, and shared responsibility, as well as demonstrating the skills of being a lifelong learner.²

As educators, we often hold ourselves to unrealistic expectations of being omniscient knowledge vessels. In times of crisis or uncertainty, teaching about how to learn and where to learn become just as important as what to learn. Invite learners to observe how you navigate ambiguity. For example, I recently interacted with a colleague on an unfamiliar case. She said, “Dr Wang, I don’t know much about malaria. Can you share with me what made you consider this diagnosis?” Additionally, admitting to learners when you have made an error not only clarifies their learning, but also role models continuous personal improvement.

By modeling humility by acknowledging our own limits, respecting our learners’ knowledge and experiences, and demonstrating how we manage uncertainty, we can enhance the learning environment and inspire our learners.

“By learning you will teach, by teaching you will learn.”

–Latin proverb

The COVID-19 pandemic thrust hospitalists into uncertain clinical situations where scientific evidence was rapidly changing and expert consensus was not always available. Amidst this, our learners were eager to better understand this new disease and how to properly care for patients. This forced hospitalists, as educators, to face the question: “How do you teach when you don’t have the answers?”

Teaching outside a hospitalist’s expertise existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to exist. It is a challenge encountered frequently by both junior and senior faculty across all disciplines, yet is rarely discussed.¹ However, great learning can still occur when we teach at the edge of our comfort zones.

You don’t need to be an expert to be a great teacher. Although most educators know this, we often fear that disclosing our knowledge limitations exposes our weaknesses. But a successful start to the learning journey begins with establishing trust and confidence with your learners. Remaining authentic in your knowledge base will inspire more credibility than false pretenses of content mastery. Phrases like, “This topic is new for me as well. Here’s what I do know and what I don’t know” or “What a great question. I wish I had a great answer. Let me get back to you” set a standard for honesty and reduce teaching pressures. In turn, learners will be more comfortable acknowledging their own uncertainties and will be more likely to voice their hesitations or ask questions on rounds.

The field of medicine is steeped in hierarchical structure, where the attending is assumed to have the most knowledge. But this may not always be true, as learners are often more up to date on a subject than the attending. By reexamining traditional hierarchies and instead considering ourselves as part of a learning team, we can promote a more positive educational climate.

When a learner asks a question that you don’t have an answer for, the response “Great question. I can tell you what I think, but I’m interested in first hearing your thoughts” reflects that you respect your learners and their skills and experiences. You can also ask them to do a literature review and report back to you and the team the next morning. By inverting the hierarchy, you are teaching humility, adaptability, and shared responsibility, as well as demonstrating the skills of being a lifelong learner.²

As educators, we often hold ourselves to unrealistic expectations of being omniscient knowledge vessels. In times of crisis or uncertainty, teaching about how to learn and where to learn become just as important as what to learn. Invite learners to observe how you navigate ambiguity. For example, I recently interacted with a colleague on an unfamiliar case. She said, “Dr Wang, I don’t know much about malaria. Can you share with me what made you consider this diagnosis?” Additionally, admitting to learners when you have made an error not only clarifies their learning, but also role models continuous personal improvement.

By modeling humility by acknowledging our own limits, respecting our learners’ knowledge and experiences, and demonstrating how we manage uncertainty, we can enhance the learning environment and inspire our learners.