Postintubation laryngeal and tracheal injuries may be yet another part of recovery from severe COVID-19 infection for some patients.

Evidence has been accumulating on the link between prolonged intubation and lingering breathing and speaking difficulties, a concern that has become more germane in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, researchers in Italy led by Giacomo Fiacchini, MD, and Luca Bruschini, MD, of the University of Pisa have published new research suggesting tracheal complications were particularly common in COVID-19 patients intubated for prolonged periods during the pandemic.

The study may be revealing effects of the pandemic itself, as resources and staff were at times overwhelmed by critical care patients. Of the 98 patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 47% intubated for longer than 14 days developed full-thickness tracheal lesions, compared with 2.2% of a control group treated during the same time frame in 2019. The difference is eye-popping, but may not be generalizable. “I have not observed an increased rate of tracheal injury, but we haven’t carefully studied that outcome as far as I know,” said Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, who is a senior staff physician and director of the pulmonary inpatient unit at Henry Ford Health System, and an associate professor at Wayne State University, Detroit.

He expressed concern about the retrospective nature of the study, and wondered if the different outcomes might be because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. “It’s not hard to imagine that these patients were seen [during] a great rush of patients, whereas the control group was looked at during a period where that kind of volume didn’t exist. There might have been a tendency for more inexperienced practitioners to be intubating patients because they were in the middle of the epidemic. There might have been less supervision of trainees. Individuals, physicians, teams may have been more rushed. Protocols may not have been followed as closely. It may all be an effect of the epidemic itself,” said Dr. Ouellette.

The investigators suggested that implementation of pronation maneuvers may have increased cuff pressure on the tracheal walls leading to some injuries. In addition, the prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic state of patients with COVID-19 may have contributed, along with the impact of systemic steroids that may have altered normal healing of tracheal wall microwounds caused by intubation, cuff pressure, or tracheostomy.

Other research has suggested increased complications from intubation among COVID-19 patients, including a case series that found heightened frequency of pneumomediastinum. The authors of that study suggested that aggressive disease pathophysiology and accompanying risk of alveolar damage and tracheobronchial injury may be to blame, along with larger-bore tracheal tubes and higher ventilation pressures. That study may also be reflecting the conditions of intubation during the pandemic.

Not all institutions saw an uptick in tracheal injury or pneumomediastinum. Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Springfield, asked one of the institute’s statisticians to examine pneumothorax frequency from March 15, 2020, to March 1, 2021, comparing the rates between patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of admission, and those who tested negative. The rate was 0.5% in patients who tested positive versus 0.4% in those who tested negative. “My division chief’s gut sense is it’s just the same. The prevalence [of pneumomediastinum] is what we were seeing before,” said Dr. Farmer.

Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that more than half of patients undergoing prolonged intubation experience breathing and speaking difficulties at 10 weeks post intubation. The group has followed up that study with another study looking at treatment timing and outcomes.

The researchers reviewed the experiences of 29 patients with laryngeal injury from endotracheal intubation between May 1, 2014,- and June 1, 2018. Ten patients with posterior glottis injury received early treatment, at a median of 34.7 days to presentation (interquartile range, 1.5-44.8 days). Nineteen patients with posterior glottis stenosis received treatment at a median of 341.9 days (absolute difference, 307.2 days; 95% confidence interval, 124.4-523.3 days). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. At last follow-up, 90% of the early-treatment group were decannulated, compared with 58% of the late group (absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, –3% to 68%). The early group required a mean of 2.2 interventions, compared with 11.5 in the late group (absolute difference, 9.3; 95% CI, 6.4-12.1). No patients in the early group required an open procedure, compared with 90% of the late-treatment group.

Although early treatment seems promising, the timing of laryngeal injury repair would be a key consideration. “You would worry about patient stability, [making] sure they’re clinically stable and didn’t have any acute ill effects from the injury itself or the underlying illness that led to intubation,” said Dr. Ouellette. For COVID-19 patients, that would mean recovery from pneumonia or any other lung problems, he added.

Together, the studies raise concerns and questions over tracheal and laryngeal injury in the context of COVID-19, but fall short of providing clinical guidance. “It raises the awareness in the mind of the critical care physician about these potential injuries to the larynx surrounding intubation,” said Dr. Farmer.

The studies received no funding. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Postintubation laryngeal and tracheal injuries may be yet another part of recovery from severe COVID-19 infection for some patients.

Evidence has been accumulating on the link between prolonged intubation and lingering breathing and speaking difficulties, a concern that has become more germane in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, researchers in Italy led by Giacomo Fiacchini, MD, and Luca Bruschini, MD, of the University of Pisa have published new research suggesting tracheal complications were particularly common in COVID-19 patients intubated for prolonged periods during the pandemic.

The study may be revealing effects of the pandemic itself, as resources and staff were at times overwhelmed by critical care patients. Of the 98 patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 47% intubated for longer than 14 days developed full-thickness tracheal lesions, compared with 2.2% of a control group treated during the same time frame in 2019. The difference is eye-popping, but may not be generalizable. “I have not observed an increased rate of tracheal injury, but we haven’t carefully studied that outcome as far as I know,” said Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, who is a senior staff physician and director of the pulmonary inpatient unit at Henry Ford Health System, and an associate professor at Wayne State University, Detroit.

He expressed concern about the retrospective nature of the study, and wondered if the different outcomes might be because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. “It’s not hard to imagine that these patients were seen [during] a great rush of patients, whereas the control group was looked at during a period where that kind of volume didn’t exist. There might have been a tendency for more inexperienced practitioners to be intubating patients because they were in the middle of the epidemic. There might have been less supervision of trainees. Individuals, physicians, teams may have been more rushed. Protocols may not have been followed as closely. It may all be an effect of the epidemic itself,” said Dr. Ouellette.

The investigators suggested that implementation of pronation maneuvers may have increased cuff pressure on the tracheal walls leading to some injuries. In addition, the prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic state of patients with COVID-19 may have contributed, along with the impact of systemic steroids that may have altered normal healing of tracheal wall microwounds caused by intubation, cuff pressure, or tracheostomy.

Other research has suggested increased complications from intubation among COVID-19 patients, including a case series that found heightened frequency of pneumomediastinum. The authors of that study suggested that aggressive disease pathophysiology and accompanying risk of alveolar damage and tracheobronchial injury may be to blame, along with larger-bore tracheal tubes and higher ventilation pressures. That study may also be reflecting the conditions of intubation during the pandemic.

Not all institutions saw an uptick in tracheal injury or pneumomediastinum. Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Springfield, asked one of the institute’s statisticians to examine pneumothorax frequency from March 15, 2020, to March 1, 2021, comparing the rates between patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of admission, and those who tested negative. The rate was 0.5% in patients who tested positive versus 0.4% in those who tested negative. “My division chief’s gut sense is it’s just the same. The prevalence [of pneumomediastinum] is what we were seeing before,” said Dr. Farmer.

Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that more than half of patients undergoing prolonged intubation experience breathing and speaking difficulties at 10 weeks post intubation. The group has followed up that study with another study looking at treatment timing and outcomes.

The researchers reviewed the experiences of 29 patients with laryngeal injury from endotracheal intubation between May 1, 2014,- and June 1, 2018. Ten patients with posterior glottis injury received early treatment, at a median of 34.7 days to presentation (interquartile range, 1.5-44.8 days). Nineteen patients with posterior glottis stenosis received treatment at a median of 341.9 days (absolute difference, 307.2 days; 95% confidence interval, 124.4-523.3 days). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. At last follow-up, 90% of the early-treatment group were decannulated, compared with 58% of the late group (absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, –3% to 68%). The early group required a mean of 2.2 interventions, compared with 11.5 in the late group (absolute difference, 9.3; 95% CI, 6.4-12.1). No patients in the early group required an open procedure, compared with 90% of the late-treatment group.

Although early treatment seems promising, the timing of laryngeal injury repair would be a key consideration. “You would worry about patient stability, [making] sure they’re clinically stable and didn’t have any acute ill effects from the injury itself or the underlying illness that led to intubation,” said Dr. Ouellette. For COVID-19 patients, that would mean recovery from pneumonia or any other lung problems, he added.

Together, the studies raise concerns and questions over tracheal and laryngeal injury in the context of COVID-19, but fall short of providing clinical guidance. “It raises the awareness in the mind of the critical care physician about these potential injuries to the larynx surrounding intubation,” said Dr. Farmer.

The studies received no funding. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Postintubation laryngeal and tracheal injuries may be yet another part of recovery from severe COVID-19 infection for some patients.

Evidence has been accumulating on the link between prolonged intubation and lingering breathing and speaking difficulties, a concern that has become more germane in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, researchers in Italy led by Giacomo Fiacchini, MD, and Luca Bruschini, MD, of the University of Pisa have published new research suggesting tracheal complications were particularly common in COVID-19 patients intubated for prolonged periods during the pandemic.

The study may be revealing effects of the pandemic itself, as resources and staff were at times overwhelmed by critical care patients. Of the 98 patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 47% intubated for longer than 14 days developed full-thickness tracheal lesions, compared with 2.2% of a control group treated during the same time frame in 2019. The difference is eye-popping, but may not be generalizable. “I have not observed an increased rate of tracheal injury, but we haven’t carefully studied that outcome as far as I know,” said Daniel Ouellette, MD, FCCP, who is a senior staff physician and director of the pulmonary inpatient unit at Henry Ford Health System, and an associate professor at Wayne State University, Detroit.

He expressed concern about the retrospective nature of the study, and wondered if the different outcomes might be because of disruptions caused by the pandemic. “It’s not hard to imagine that these patients were seen [during] a great rush of patients, whereas the control group was looked at during a period where that kind of volume didn’t exist. There might have been a tendency for more inexperienced practitioners to be intubating patients because they were in the middle of the epidemic. There might have been less supervision of trainees. Individuals, physicians, teams may have been more rushed. Protocols may not have been followed as closely. It may all be an effect of the epidemic itself,” said Dr. Ouellette.

The investigators suggested that implementation of pronation maneuvers may have increased cuff pressure on the tracheal walls leading to some injuries. In addition, the prothrombotic and antifibrinolytic state of patients with COVID-19 may have contributed, along with the impact of systemic steroids that may have altered normal healing of tracheal wall microwounds caused by intubation, cuff pressure, or tracheostomy.

Other research has suggested increased complications from intubation among COVID-19 patients, including a case series that found heightened frequency of pneumomediastinum. The authors of that study suggested that aggressive disease pathophysiology and accompanying risk of alveolar damage and tracheobronchial injury may be to blame, along with larger-bore tracheal tubes and higher ventilation pressures. That study may also be reflecting the conditions of intubation during the pandemic.

Not all institutions saw an uptick in tracheal injury or pneumomediastinum. Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Springfield, asked one of the institute’s statisticians to examine pneumothorax frequency from March 15, 2020, to March 1, 2021, comparing the rates between patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of admission, and those who tested negative. The rate was 0.5% in patients who tested positive versus 0.4% in those who tested negative. “My division chief’s gut sense is it’s just the same. The prevalence [of pneumomediastinum] is what we were seeing before,” said Dr. Farmer.

Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that more than half of patients undergoing prolonged intubation experience breathing and speaking difficulties at 10 weeks post intubation. The group has followed up that study with another study looking at treatment timing and outcomes.

The researchers reviewed the experiences of 29 patients with laryngeal injury from endotracheal intubation between May 1, 2014,- and June 1, 2018. Ten patients with posterior glottis injury received early treatment, at a median of 34.7 days to presentation (interquartile range, 1.5-44.8 days). Nineteen patients with posterior glottis stenosis received treatment at a median of 341.9 days (absolute difference, 307.2 days; 95% confidence interval, 124.4-523.3 days). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two groups. At last follow-up, 90% of the early-treatment group were decannulated, compared with 58% of the late group (absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, –3% to 68%). The early group required a mean of 2.2 interventions, compared with 11.5 in the late group (absolute difference, 9.3; 95% CI, 6.4-12.1). No patients in the early group required an open procedure, compared with 90% of the late-treatment group.

Although early treatment seems promising, the timing of laryngeal injury repair would be a key consideration. “You would worry about patient stability, [making] sure they’re clinically stable and didn’t have any acute ill effects from the injury itself or the underlying illness that led to intubation,” said Dr. Ouellette. For COVID-19 patients, that would mean recovery from pneumonia or any other lung problems, he added.

Together, the studies raise concerns and questions over tracheal and laryngeal injury in the context of COVID-19, but fall short of providing clinical guidance. “It raises the awareness in the mind of the critical care physician about these potential injuries to the larynx surrounding intubation,” said Dr. Farmer.

The studies received no funding. Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

The use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can improve survival in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative remission patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after the start of monoclonal antibody treatment, according to the results of a landmark analysis presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

Previous studies have indicated that allo-HSCT improves the results of treatment in r/r B-ALL patients, compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, it has been found that the monoclonal antibodies (Mab), anti-CD19-blinatumomab and anti-CD22-inotuzumab ozogamicin, induced remission in a significant proportion of such patients.

To determine if the use of allo-HSCT improves the outcome of patients in MRD-negative remission with or without Mab treatment, researchers performed a landmark analysis of 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status after Mab treatment. The analysis examined results at 2, 4, and 6 months subsequent to the initiation of Mab treatment, according to poster presentation by Inna V. Markova, MD, and colleagues at Pavlov University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
 

Study details

The researchers included 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status outside of clinical trials at a single institution in the analysis. Forty of the patients (36%) were children and 70 (64%) were adults. The median age for all patients was 23 years and the median follow up was 24 months. Fifty-seven (52%) and 53 (48%) patients received Mab for hematological relapse and persistent measurable residual disease or for molecular relapse, respectively. Therapy with Mab alone without subsequent allo-HSCT was used in 36 (31%) patients (30 received blinatumomab and 6 received inotuzumab ozogamicin). A total of 74 (69%) patients received allo-HSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor (MD-HSCT, n = 38) or haploidentical donor (Haplo-HSCT, n = 36). All patients received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCY)–based graft-versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Landmark analysis was performed at 2, 4, and 6 months after Mab therapy initiation to determine the effect of allo-HSCT on the outcome and the optimal timing of HSCT. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were used as outcomes.
 

Promising results

No significant differences between the MD-HSCT, Mab alone, and Haplo-HSCT groups were observed in 2-month landmark analysis (P = .4 for OS and P =.65 for DFS). However, the 4-month landmark analysis demonstrated superior overall survival and DFS in patients after MD-HSCT, but not Haplo-HSCT, compared with Mab alone: 2-year OS was 75%, 50%, and 27,7% (P = .032) and DFS was 53.5%, 51.3%, and 16.6% (P = .02) for MD-HSCT, Mab alone and Haplo-HSCT groups, respectively. In addition, 6-month analysis showed that there was no benefit from subsequent transplantation, according to the authors, with regard to overall survival (P = .11).

“Our study demonstrated that at least MD-HSCT with PTCY platform improves survival in MRD-negative remission if performed during the first 4 months after Mab initiation. Haplo-HSCT or MD-HSCT beyond 4 months are not associated with improved outcomes in this groups of patients,” the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

The use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can improve survival in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative remission patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after the start of monoclonal antibody treatment, according to the results of a landmark analysis presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

Previous studies have indicated that allo-HSCT improves the results of treatment in r/r B-ALL patients, compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, it has been found that the monoclonal antibodies (Mab), anti-CD19-blinatumomab and anti-CD22-inotuzumab ozogamicin, induced remission in a significant proportion of such patients.

To determine if the use of allo-HSCT improves the outcome of patients in MRD-negative remission with or without Mab treatment, researchers performed a landmark analysis of 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status after Mab treatment. The analysis examined results at 2, 4, and 6 months subsequent to the initiation of Mab treatment, according to poster presentation by Inna V. Markova, MD, and colleagues at Pavlov University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
 

Study details

The researchers included 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status outside of clinical trials at a single institution in the analysis. Forty of the patients (36%) were children and 70 (64%) were adults. The median age for all patients was 23 years and the median follow up was 24 months. Fifty-seven (52%) and 53 (48%) patients received Mab for hematological relapse and persistent measurable residual disease or for molecular relapse, respectively. Therapy with Mab alone without subsequent allo-HSCT was used in 36 (31%) patients (30 received blinatumomab and 6 received inotuzumab ozogamicin). A total of 74 (69%) patients received allo-HSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor (MD-HSCT, n = 38) or haploidentical donor (Haplo-HSCT, n = 36). All patients received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCY)–based graft-versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Landmark analysis was performed at 2, 4, and 6 months after Mab therapy initiation to determine the effect of allo-HSCT on the outcome and the optimal timing of HSCT. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were used as outcomes.
 

Promising results

No significant differences between the MD-HSCT, Mab alone, and Haplo-HSCT groups were observed in 2-month landmark analysis (P = .4 for OS and P =.65 for DFS). However, the 4-month landmark analysis demonstrated superior overall survival and DFS in patients after MD-HSCT, but not Haplo-HSCT, compared with Mab alone: 2-year OS was 75%, 50%, and 27,7% (P = .032) and DFS was 53.5%, 51.3%, and 16.6% (P = .02) for MD-HSCT, Mab alone and Haplo-HSCT groups, respectively. In addition, 6-month analysis showed that there was no benefit from subsequent transplantation, according to the authors, with regard to overall survival (P = .11).

“Our study demonstrated that at least MD-HSCT with PTCY platform improves survival in MRD-negative remission if performed during the first 4 months after Mab initiation. Haplo-HSCT or MD-HSCT beyond 4 months are not associated with improved outcomes in this groups of patients,” the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

The use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can improve survival in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative remission patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after the start of monoclonal antibody treatment, according to the results of a landmark analysis presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

Previous studies have indicated that allo-HSCT improves the results of treatment in r/r B-ALL patients, compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, it has been found that the monoclonal antibodies (Mab), anti-CD19-blinatumomab and anti-CD22-inotuzumab ozogamicin, induced remission in a significant proportion of such patients.

To determine if the use of allo-HSCT improves the outcome of patients in MRD-negative remission with or without Mab treatment, researchers performed a landmark analysis of 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status after Mab treatment. The analysis examined results at 2, 4, and 6 months subsequent to the initiation of Mab treatment, according to poster presentation by Inna V. Markova, MD, and colleagues at Pavlov University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
 

Study details

The researchers included 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status outside of clinical trials at a single institution in the analysis. Forty of the patients (36%) were children and 70 (64%) were adults. The median age for all patients was 23 years and the median follow up was 24 months. Fifty-seven (52%) and 53 (48%) patients received Mab for hematological relapse and persistent measurable residual disease or for molecular relapse, respectively. Therapy with Mab alone without subsequent allo-HSCT was used in 36 (31%) patients (30 received blinatumomab and 6 received inotuzumab ozogamicin). A total of 74 (69%) patients received allo-HSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor (MD-HSCT, n = 38) or haploidentical donor (Haplo-HSCT, n = 36). All patients received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCY)–based graft-versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Landmark analysis was performed at 2, 4, and 6 months after Mab therapy initiation to determine the effect of allo-HSCT on the outcome and the optimal timing of HSCT. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were used as outcomes.
 

Promising results

No significant differences between the MD-HSCT, Mab alone, and Haplo-HSCT groups were observed in 2-month landmark analysis (P = .4 for OS and P =.65 for DFS). However, the 4-month landmark analysis demonstrated superior overall survival and DFS in patients after MD-HSCT, but not Haplo-HSCT, compared with Mab alone: 2-year OS was 75%, 50%, and 27,7% (P = .032) and DFS was 53.5%, 51.3%, and 16.6% (P = .02) for MD-HSCT, Mab alone and Haplo-HSCT groups, respectively. In addition, 6-month analysis showed that there was no benefit from subsequent transplantation, according to the authors, with regard to overall survival (P = .11).

“Our study demonstrated that at least MD-HSCT with PTCY platform improves survival in MRD-negative remission if performed during the first 4 months after Mab initiation. Haplo-HSCT or MD-HSCT beyond 4 months are not associated with improved outcomes in this groups of patients,” the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

Baseball great Satchel Paige’s famous adage, “Age is a case of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it don’t matter,” may also apply to candidates for ovarian cancer surgery. That’s because investigators have found that physical frailty is a better determinant of fitness for surgery than is calendar age.

Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 591 patients considered for primary resection of stage II to IV high-grade ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Results showed that a 10-item modified frailty index was better than patient age for predicting survival outcomes.

“Frailty does seem to correlate with age and increase with age, but it is not synonymous with age,” said investigator Katelyn F. Handley, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Frailty is a spectrum, and we can see patients of the same chronological age, but one may be a 76-year-old, ultra-distance triathlete, while another is in failing health and diminishing function,” Dr. Handley said at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10463).

Dr. Handley cited a consensus definition of frailty, published in 2013, as “a medical syndrome with multiple causes and contributors that is characterized by diminished strength, endurance, and reduced physiologic function that increases an individual’s vulnerability for developing increased dependency and/or death.”
 

Ten-item score

To assess the effect of frailty in ovarian cancer patients on surgical procedures and outcomes, the investigators retrospectively applied a modified frailty index (mFI) to patients who were treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center from April 2013 through September 2017.

The index is a sum of 10 items: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or recent pneumonia, heart failure, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident with neurologic deficit, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (3 or 4).

Of the 591 patients who met inclusion criteria, 57% had mFI scores of 0, indicating no frailty, 29% had one frailty factor, and 14% had two or more factors.

Patient age did significantly correlate with mFI scores. Patients with an mFI score of 0 had a median age of 62 years, the median age in those with a score of 1 was 69 years, and the median age for those with scores of 2 or higher was 70.5 years (P <. 001).

Charlson comorbidity index scores also significantly increased with age, with mean scores of 3.00, 3.83, and 5.14 in patients with mFI scores of 0, 1, or 2, respectively (P <. 001).

“But if you look at the age ranges in each category, you’ll notice that there are patients as young as 47 with an mFI of greater than or equal to 2, and as old as 89 with an mFI of 0,” Dr. Handley pointed out.
 

Higher scores, fewer assessments

The investigators found that patients with suspected ovarian cancer with frailty scores of 2 or higher were less likely to be offered laparoscopic assessment to determine primary resectability than were those with scores of 1 or 0 (28% vs. 43% and 49%, respectively, P = .004).

Among all patients who underwent laparoscopic assessment, the predictive index score (modified Fagotti score) was more likely to be 8 or higher in patients with high frailty scores (58%, 48%, and 34% for scores of 2 or greater, 1, and 0, respectively; P = .038).

Only 17% of the most frail patients went on to primary debulking surgery, compared with 26% of patients with a single frailty factor and 34% of those with none (P = .015).

Patients with higher frailty scores were less likely to undergo primary or interval tumor reductive surgery (59% vs. 74% for those with mFI scores of 1 and 85% for those with scores of 0; P <. 001). The frailest patients were significantly more likely to undergo splenectomy (20%, 3%, and 6%, respectively; P = .001) and small bowel resection (14%, 8%, and 3%, respectively; P = .006).

Two-thirds of the most frail patients (64%) had postoperative complications, primarily gastrointestinal and renal complications, compared with 56% and 44% of patients with mFI scores of 1 or 0, respectively (P = .014).

Frailty was predictive of 30-day postoperative mortality (P = .005) but not postoperative length of stay.

Frailer patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = .033) but less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (P <. 001).

mFI scores of 2 or greater and 1 were both associated with significantly worse progression-free survival (P < .001 and P = .022, respectively), but only an mFI of 2 or greater was associated with significantly worse overall survival (P <. 001).

On multivariate analysis controlling for frailty, age, stage, BRCA status, and tumor reductive surgery status, high frailty was associated with worse progression-free survival (P = .009) and a trend toward worse overall survival (P = .079).

High frailty was better than age for predicting worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.50; P = .017) and overall survival (HR, 1.57; P = .047)
 

Volume counts

In a separate presentation during the same session, Morcos Nakhla, of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported finding similar associations between frailty and worse surgical outcomes for ovarian cancer patients (Abstract 11016).

Mr. Nakhla and colleagues found that frail patients had a twofold increase in the risk of postoperative complications, a threefold increase in the risk for non-home dismissal, and a threefold increased risk of death (P <. 001 for all).

The team also found, however, that mortality improved from 2005 through 2017, despite an increase in frail patients over that time period.

In addition, higher surgical volumes were associated with decreased mortality among frail patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery.
 

Navigating treatment

“Frailty syndrome is a medical syndrome. It’s not a disability,” said Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., the invited discussant. “No patient or human wants to be frail, but at some point, we may all be at risk for frailty syndrome, and as we navigate much-needed novel ways to treat this medical syndrome, it’s imperative that we listen to the voice of the customer and that our communication and technology doesn’t add unanticipated stress.”

Dr. Bakkum-Gamez emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, screening for frailty syndrome, referral to higher volume surgical centers when practical, and surgical alternatives such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without interval debulking surgery and palliative care.

Interventions for ameliorating frailty may include exercise, high-protein calorie supplementation, reduction of polypharmacy, and vitamin D supplementation.

“Sometimes, shared decision-making means deciding not to operate,” Dr. Bakkum-Gamez said. “This is sometimes amongst the hardest decisions for a surgeon. We know when we make the wrong decision in operating if our patient experiences a major, life-shortening complication, but it’s less clear to know if we make the wrong decision to not operate.”

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was funded by the Gulf Coast Consortia, MD Anderson, National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, and GOG Foundation. Mr. Nakhla and colleagues did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Handley, Mr. Nakhla, and Dr. Bakkum-Gamez all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Baseball great Satchel Paige’s famous adage, “Age is a case of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it don’t matter,” may also apply to candidates for ovarian cancer surgery. That’s because investigators have found that physical frailty is a better determinant of fitness for surgery than is calendar age.

Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 591 patients considered for primary resection of stage II to IV high-grade ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Results showed that a 10-item modified frailty index was better than patient age for predicting survival outcomes.

“Frailty does seem to correlate with age and increase with age, but it is not synonymous with age,” said investigator Katelyn F. Handley, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Frailty is a spectrum, and we can see patients of the same chronological age, but one may be a 76-year-old, ultra-distance triathlete, while another is in failing health and diminishing function,” Dr. Handley said at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10463).

Dr. Handley cited a consensus definition of frailty, published in 2013, as “a medical syndrome with multiple causes and contributors that is characterized by diminished strength, endurance, and reduced physiologic function that increases an individual’s vulnerability for developing increased dependency and/or death.”
 

Ten-item score

To assess the effect of frailty in ovarian cancer patients on surgical procedures and outcomes, the investigators retrospectively applied a modified frailty index (mFI) to patients who were treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center from April 2013 through September 2017.

The index is a sum of 10 items: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or recent pneumonia, heart failure, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident with neurologic deficit, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (3 or 4).

Of the 591 patients who met inclusion criteria, 57% had mFI scores of 0, indicating no frailty, 29% had one frailty factor, and 14% had two or more factors.

Patient age did significantly correlate with mFI scores. Patients with an mFI score of 0 had a median age of 62 years, the median age in those with a score of 1 was 69 years, and the median age for those with scores of 2 or higher was 70.5 years (P <. 001).

Charlson comorbidity index scores also significantly increased with age, with mean scores of 3.00, 3.83, and 5.14 in patients with mFI scores of 0, 1, or 2, respectively (P <. 001).

“But if you look at the age ranges in each category, you’ll notice that there are patients as young as 47 with an mFI of greater than or equal to 2, and as old as 89 with an mFI of 0,” Dr. Handley pointed out.
 

Higher scores, fewer assessments

The investigators found that patients with suspected ovarian cancer with frailty scores of 2 or higher were less likely to be offered laparoscopic assessment to determine primary resectability than were those with scores of 1 or 0 (28% vs. 43% and 49%, respectively, P = .004).

Among all patients who underwent laparoscopic assessment, the predictive index score (modified Fagotti score) was more likely to be 8 or higher in patients with high frailty scores (58%, 48%, and 34% for scores of 2 or greater, 1, and 0, respectively; P = .038).

Only 17% of the most frail patients went on to primary debulking surgery, compared with 26% of patients with a single frailty factor and 34% of those with none (P = .015).

Patients with higher frailty scores were less likely to undergo primary or interval tumor reductive surgery (59% vs. 74% for those with mFI scores of 1 and 85% for those with scores of 0; P <. 001). The frailest patients were significantly more likely to undergo splenectomy (20%, 3%, and 6%, respectively; P = .001) and small bowel resection (14%, 8%, and 3%, respectively; P = .006).

Two-thirds of the most frail patients (64%) had postoperative complications, primarily gastrointestinal and renal complications, compared with 56% and 44% of patients with mFI scores of 1 or 0, respectively (P = .014).

Frailty was predictive of 30-day postoperative mortality (P = .005) but not postoperative length of stay.

Frailer patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = .033) but less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (P <. 001).

mFI scores of 2 or greater and 1 were both associated with significantly worse progression-free survival (P < .001 and P = .022, respectively), but only an mFI of 2 or greater was associated with significantly worse overall survival (P <. 001).

On multivariate analysis controlling for frailty, age, stage, BRCA status, and tumor reductive surgery status, high frailty was associated with worse progression-free survival (P = .009) and a trend toward worse overall survival (P = .079).

High frailty was better than age for predicting worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.50; P = .017) and overall survival (HR, 1.57; P = .047)
 

Volume counts

In a separate presentation during the same session, Morcos Nakhla, of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported finding similar associations between frailty and worse surgical outcomes for ovarian cancer patients (Abstract 11016).

Mr. Nakhla and colleagues found that frail patients had a twofold increase in the risk of postoperative complications, a threefold increase in the risk for non-home dismissal, and a threefold increased risk of death (P <. 001 for all).

The team also found, however, that mortality improved from 2005 through 2017, despite an increase in frail patients over that time period.

In addition, higher surgical volumes were associated with decreased mortality among frail patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery.
 

Navigating treatment

“Frailty syndrome is a medical syndrome. It’s not a disability,” said Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., the invited discussant. “No patient or human wants to be frail, but at some point, we may all be at risk for frailty syndrome, and as we navigate much-needed novel ways to treat this medical syndrome, it’s imperative that we listen to the voice of the customer and that our communication and technology doesn’t add unanticipated stress.”

Dr. Bakkum-Gamez emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, screening for frailty syndrome, referral to higher volume surgical centers when practical, and surgical alternatives such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without interval debulking surgery and palliative care.

Interventions for ameliorating frailty may include exercise, high-protein calorie supplementation, reduction of polypharmacy, and vitamin D supplementation.

“Sometimes, shared decision-making means deciding not to operate,” Dr. Bakkum-Gamez said. “This is sometimes amongst the hardest decisions for a surgeon. We know when we make the wrong decision in operating if our patient experiences a major, life-shortening complication, but it’s less clear to know if we make the wrong decision to not operate.”

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was funded by the Gulf Coast Consortia, MD Anderson, National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, and GOG Foundation. Mr. Nakhla and colleagues did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Handley, Mr. Nakhla, and Dr. Bakkum-Gamez all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Baseball great Satchel Paige’s famous adage, “Age is a case of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it don’t matter,” may also apply to candidates for ovarian cancer surgery. That’s because investigators have found that physical frailty is a better determinant of fitness for surgery than is calendar age.

Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 591 patients considered for primary resection of stage II to IV high-grade ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Results showed that a 10-item modified frailty index was better than patient age for predicting survival outcomes.

“Frailty does seem to correlate with age and increase with age, but it is not synonymous with age,” said investigator Katelyn F. Handley, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Frailty is a spectrum, and we can see patients of the same chronological age, but one may be a 76-year-old, ultra-distance triathlete, while another is in failing health and diminishing function,” Dr. Handley said at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10463).

Dr. Handley cited a consensus definition of frailty, published in 2013, as “a medical syndrome with multiple causes and contributors that is characterized by diminished strength, endurance, and reduced physiologic function that increases an individual’s vulnerability for developing increased dependency and/or death.”
 

Ten-item score

To assess the effect of frailty in ovarian cancer patients on surgical procedures and outcomes, the investigators retrospectively applied a modified frailty index (mFI) to patients who were treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center from April 2013 through September 2017.

The index is a sum of 10 items: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or recent pneumonia, heart failure, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident with neurologic deficit, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (3 or 4).

Of the 591 patients who met inclusion criteria, 57% had mFI scores of 0, indicating no frailty, 29% had one frailty factor, and 14% had two or more factors.

Patient age did significantly correlate with mFI scores. Patients with an mFI score of 0 had a median age of 62 years, the median age in those with a score of 1 was 69 years, and the median age for those with scores of 2 or higher was 70.5 years (P <. 001).

Charlson comorbidity index scores also significantly increased with age, with mean scores of 3.00, 3.83, and 5.14 in patients with mFI scores of 0, 1, or 2, respectively (P <. 001).

“But if you look at the age ranges in each category, you’ll notice that there are patients as young as 47 with an mFI of greater than or equal to 2, and as old as 89 with an mFI of 0,” Dr. Handley pointed out.
 

Higher scores, fewer assessments

The investigators found that patients with suspected ovarian cancer with frailty scores of 2 or higher were less likely to be offered laparoscopic assessment to determine primary resectability than were those with scores of 1 or 0 (28% vs. 43% and 49%, respectively, P = .004).

Among all patients who underwent laparoscopic assessment, the predictive index score (modified Fagotti score) was more likely to be 8 or higher in patients with high frailty scores (58%, 48%, and 34% for scores of 2 or greater, 1, and 0, respectively; P = .038).

Only 17% of the most frail patients went on to primary debulking surgery, compared with 26% of patients with a single frailty factor and 34% of those with none (P = .015).

Patients with higher frailty scores were less likely to undergo primary or interval tumor reductive surgery (59% vs. 74% for those with mFI scores of 1 and 85% for those with scores of 0; P <. 001). The frailest patients were significantly more likely to undergo splenectomy (20%, 3%, and 6%, respectively; P = .001) and small bowel resection (14%, 8%, and 3%, respectively; P = .006).

Two-thirds of the most frail patients (64%) had postoperative complications, primarily gastrointestinal and renal complications, compared with 56% and 44% of patients with mFI scores of 1 or 0, respectively (P = .014).

Frailty was predictive of 30-day postoperative mortality (P = .005) but not postoperative length of stay.

Frailer patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = .033) but less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (P <. 001).

mFI scores of 2 or greater and 1 were both associated with significantly worse progression-free survival (P < .001 and P = .022, respectively), but only an mFI of 2 or greater was associated with significantly worse overall survival (P <. 001).

On multivariate analysis controlling for frailty, age, stage, BRCA status, and tumor reductive surgery status, high frailty was associated with worse progression-free survival (P = .009) and a trend toward worse overall survival (P = .079).

High frailty was better than age for predicting worse progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.50; P = .017) and overall survival (HR, 1.57; P = .047)
 

Volume counts

In a separate presentation during the same session, Morcos Nakhla, of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported finding similar associations between frailty and worse surgical outcomes for ovarian cancer patients (Abstract 11016).

Mr. Nakhla and colleagues found that frail patients had a twofold increase in the risk of postoperative complications, a threefold increase in the risk for non-home dismissal, and a threefold increased risk of death (P <. 001 for all).

The team also found, however, that mortality improved from 2005 through 2017, despite an increase in frail patients over that time period.

In addition, higher surgical volumes were associated with decreased mortality among frail patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery.
 

Navigating treatment

“Frailty syndrome is a medical syndrome. It’s not a disability,” said Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., the invited discussant. “No patient or human wants to be frail, but at some point, we may all be at risk for frailty syndrome, and as we navigate much-needed novel ways to treat this medical syndrome, it’s imperative that we listen to the voice of the customer and that our communication and technology doesn’t add unanticipated stress.”

Dr. Bakkum-Gamez emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, screening for frailty syndrome, referral to higher volume surgical centers when practical, and surgical alternatives such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without interval debulking surgery and palliative care.

Interventions for ameliorating frailty may include exercise, high-protein calorie supplementation, reduction of polypharmacy, and vitamin D supplementation.

“Sometimes, shared decision-making means deciding not to operate,” Dr. Bakkum-Gamez said. “This is sometimes amongst the hardest decisions for a surgeon. We know when we make the wrong decision in operating if our patient experiences a major, life-shortening complication, but it’s less clear to know if we make the wrong decision to not operate.”

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was funded by the Gulf Coast Consortia, MD Anderson, National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, and GOG Foundation. Mr. Nakhla and colleagues did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Handley, Mr. Nakhla, and Dr. Bakkum-Gamez all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

Seasonal time change is now up for consideration in the U.S. Congress, prompting sleep medicine specialists to weigh in on the health impact of a major policy change.

As lawmakers in Washington propose an end to seasonal time changes by permanently establishing daylight saving time (DST), the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is pushing for a Congressional hearing so scientists can present evidence in favor of converse legislation – to make standard time the new norm.

According to the AASM, seasonal time changes in either direction have been associated with a range of detrimental health effects; however, the switch from standard time to DST incurs more risk.

“Current evidence best supports the adoption of year-round standard time, which aligns best with human circadian biology and provides distinct benefits for public health and safety,” the AASM noted in a 2020 position statement on DST.

The statement cites a number of studies that have reported associations between the switch to DST and acute, negative health outcomes, including higher rates of hospital admission, cardiovascular morbidity, atrial fibrillation, and stroke. The time shift has been associated with a spectrum of cellular, metabolic, and circadian derangements, from increased production of inflammatory markers, to higher blood pressure, and loss of sleep. These biological effects may have far-reaching consequences, including increased rates of fatal motor accidents in the days following the time change, and even increased volatility in the stock market, which may stem from cognitive deficits.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and others in the U.S. Congress have reintroduced the 2019 Sunshine Protection Act, legislation that would make DST permanent across the country. According to a statement on Sen. Rubio’s website, “The bill reflects the Florida legislature’s 2018 enactment of year-round DST; however, for Florida’s change to apply, a change in the federal statute is required. Fifteen other states – Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming – have passed similar laws, resolutions, or voter initiatives, and dozens more are looking. The legislation, if enacted, would apply to those states [that] currently participate in DST, which most states observe for eight months out of the year.”
 

A stitch in time

“The sudden change in clock time disrupts sleep/wake patterns, decreasing total sleep time and sleep quality, leading to decrements in daytime cognition,” said Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, president of the AASM and a sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 

Emphasizing this point, Dr. Ramar noted a recent study that reported an 18% increase in “patient safety-related incidents associated with human error” among health care workers within a week of the spring time change.

“Irregular bedtimes and wake times disrupt the timing of our circadian rhythms, which can lead to symptoms of insomnia or long-term, excessive daytime sleepiness. Lack of sleep can lead to numerous adverse effects on our minds, including decreased cognitive function, trouble concentrating, and general moodiness,” Dr. Ramar said.

He noted that these impacts may be more significant among certain individuals.

“The daylight saving time changes can be especially problematic for any populations that already experience chronic insufficient sleep or other sleep difficulties,” Dr. Ramar said. “Populations at greatest risk include teenagers, who tend to experience chronic sleep restriction during the school week, and night shift workers, who often struggle to sleep well during daytime hours.”

While fewer studies have evaluated the long-term effects of seasonal time changes, the AASM position statement cited evidence that “the body clock does not adjust to daylight saving time after several months,” possibly because “daylight saving time is less well-aligned with intrinsic human circadian physiology, and it disrupts the natural seasonal adjustment of the human clock due to the effect of late-evening light on the circadian rhythm.”

According to the AASM, permanent DST, as proposed by Sen. Rubio and colleagues, could “result in permanent phase delay, a condition that can also lead to a perpetual discrepancy between the innate biological clock and the extrinsic environmental clock, as well as chronic sleep loss due to early morning social demands that truncate the opportunity to sleep.” This mismatch between sleep/wake cycles and social demands, known as “social jet lag,” has been associated with chronic health risks, including metabolic syndrome, obesity, depression, and cardiovascular disease.
 

Cardiac impacts of seasonal time change

Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, a sleep specialist at Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and lead author of the AASM position statement, highlighted cardiovascular risks in a written statement for this article, noting increased rates of heart attack following the spring time change, and a higher risk of atrial fibrillation.

“Mayo Clinic has not taken a position on this issue,” Dr. Rishi noted. Still, he advocated for permanent standard time as the author of the AASM position statement and vice chair of the AASM public safety committee.

Jay Chudow, MD, and Andrew K. Krumerman, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, lead author and principal author, respectively, of a recent study that reported increased rates of atrial fibrillation admissions after DST transitions, had the same stance.

Pros and cons

Not all sleep experts are convinced. Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, a sleep specialist and director of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Medical Center, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts, Springfield, considers perspectives from both sides of the issue.

“Daylight saving time promotes active lifestyles as people engage in more outdoor activities after work and school, [and] daylight saving time produces economic and safety benefits to society as retail revenues are higher and crimes are lower,” Dr. Farmer said. “Alternatively, moving the clocks forward is a cost burden to the U.S. economy when health issues, decreased productivity, and workplace injuries are considered.”

If one time system is permanently established, Dr. Farmer anticipates divided opinions from patients with sleep issues, regardless of which system is chosen.

“I can tell you, I have a cohort of sleep patients who prefer more evening light and look forward to the spring time change to daylight saving time,” she said. “However, they would not want the sun coming up at 9:00 a.m. in the winter months if we stayed on daylight saving time year-round. Similarly, patients would not want the sun coming up at 4:00 a.m. on the longest day of the year if we stayed on standard time all year round.”

Dr. Farmer called for more research before a decision is made.

“I suggest we need more information about the dangers of staying on daylight saving or standard time year-round because perhaps the current strategy of keeping morning light consistent is not so bad,” she said.
 

Time for a Congressional hearing?

According to Dr. Ramar, the time is now for a Congressional hearing, as lawmakers and the public need to be adequately informed when considering new legislation.

“There are public misconceptions about daylight saving time and standard time,” Dr. Ramar said. “People often like the idea of daylight saving time because they think it provides more light, and they dislike the concept of standard time because they think it provides more darkness. The reality is that neither time system provides more light or darkness than the other; it is only the timing that changes.”

Until new legislation is introduced, Dr. Ramar offered some practical advice for navigating seasonal time shifts.

“Beginning 2-3 days before the time change, it can be helpful to gradually adjust sleep and wake times, as well as other daily routines such as meal times,” he said. “After the time change, going outside for some morning light can help adjust the timing of your internal body clock.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Seasonal time change is now up for consideration in the U.S. Congress, prompting sleep medicine specialists to weigh in on the health impact of a major policy change.

As lawmakers in Washington propose an end to seasonal time changes by permanently establishing daylight saving time (DST), the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is pushing for a Congressional hearing so scientists can present evidence in favor of converse legislation – to make standard time the new norm.

According to the AASM, seasonal time changes in either direction have been associated with a range of detrimental health effects; however, the switch from standard time to DST incurs more risk.

“Current evidence best supports the adoption of year-round standard time, which aligns best with human circadian biology and provides distinct benefits for public health and safety,” the AASM noted in a 2020 position statement on DST.

The statement cites a number of studies that have reported associations between the switch to DST and acute, negative health outcomes, including higher rates of hospital admission, cardiovascular morbidity, atrial fibrillation, and stroke. The time shift has been associated with a spectrum of cellular, metabolic, and circadian derangements, from increased production of inflammatory markers, to higher blood pressure, and loss of sleep. These biological effects may have far-reaching consequences, including increased rates of fatal motor accidents in the days following the time change, and even increased volatility in the stock market, which may stem from cognitive deficits.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and others in the U.S. Congress have reintroduced the 2019 Sunshine Protection Act, legislation that would make DST permanent across the country. According to a statement on Sen. Rubio’s website, “The bill reflects the Florida legislature’s 2018 enactment of year-round DST; however, for Florida’s change to apply, a change in the federal statute is required. Fifteen other states – Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming – have passed similar laws, resolutions, or voter initiatives, and dozens more are looking. The legislation, if enacted, would apply to those states [that] currently participate in DST, which most states observe for eight months out of the year.”
 

A stitch in time

“The sudden change in clock time disrupts sleep/wake patterns, decreasing total sleep time and sleep quality, leading to decrements in daytime cognition,” said Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, president of the AASM and a sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 

Emphasizing this point, Dr. Ramar noted a recent study that reported an 18% increase in “patient safety-related incidents associated with human error” among health care workers within a week of the spring time change.

“Irregular bedtimes and wake times disrupt the timing of our circadian rhythms, which can lead to symptoms of insomnia or long-term, excessive daytime sleepiness. Lack of sleep can lead to numerous adverse effects on our minds, including decreased cognitive function, trouble concentrating, and general moodiness,” Dr. Ramar said.

He noted that these impacts may be more significant among certain individuals.

“The daylight saving time changes can be especially problematic for any populations that already experience chronic insufficient sleep or other sleep difficulties,” Dr. Ramar said. “Populations at greatest risk include teenagers, who tend to experience chronic sleep restriction during the school week, and night shift workers, who often struggle to sleep well during daytime hours.”

While fewer studies have evaluated the long-term effects of seasonal time changes, the AASM position statement cited evidence that “the body clock does not adjust to daylight saving time after several months,” possibly because “daylight saving time is less well-aligned with intrinsic human circadian physiology, and it disrupts the natural seasonal adjustment of the human clock due to the effect of late-evening light on the circadian rhythm.”

According to the AASM, permanent DST, as proposed by Sen. Rubio and colleagues, could “result in permanent phase delay, a condition that can also lead to a perpetual discrepancy between the innate biological clock and the extrinsic environmental clock, as well as chronic sleep loss due to early morning social demands that truncate the opportunity to sleep.” This mismatch between sleep/wake cycles and social demands, known as “social jet lag,” has been associated with chronic health risks, including metabolic syndrome, obesity, depression, and cardiovascular disease.
 

Cardiac impacts of seasonal time change

Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, a sleep specialist at Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and lead author of the AASM position statement, highlighted cardiovascular risks in a written statement for this article, noting increased rates of heart attack following the spring time change, and a higher risk of atrial fibrillation.

“Mayo Clinic has not taken a position on this issue,” Dr. Rishi noted. Still, he advocated for permanent standard time as the author of the AASM position statement and vice chair of the AASM public safety committee.

Jay Chudow, MD, and Andrew K. Krumerman, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, lead author and principal author, respectively, of a recent study that reported increased rates of atrial fibrillation admissions after DST transitions, had the same stance.

Pros and cons

Not all sleep experts are convinced. Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, a sleep specialist and director of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Medical Center, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts, Springfield, considers perspectives from both sides of the issue.

“Daylight saving time promotes active lifestyles as people engage in more outdoor activities after work and school, [and] daylight saving time produces economic and safety benefits to society as retail revenues are higher and crimes are lower,” Dr. Farmer said. “Alternatively, moving the clocks forward is a cost burden to the U.S. economy when health issues, decreased productivity, and workplace injuries are considered.”

If one time system is permanently established, Dr. Farmer anticipates divided opinions from patients with sleep issues, regardless of which system is chosen.

“I can tell you, I have a cohort of sleep patients who prefer more evening light and look forward to the spring time change to daylight saving time,” she said. “However, they would not want the sun coming up at 9:00 a.m. in the winter months if we stayed on daylight saving time year-round. Similarly, patients would not want the sun coming up at 4:00 a.m. on the longest day of the year if we stayed on standard time all year round.”

Dr. Farmer called for more research before a decision is made.

“I suggest we need more information about the dangers of staying on daylight saving or standard time year-round because perhaps the current strategy of keeping morning light consistent is not so bad,” she said.
 

Time for a Congressional hearing?

According to Dr. Ramar, the time is now for a Congressional hearing, as lawmakers and the public need to be adequately informed when considering new legislation.

“There are public misconceptions about daylight saving time and standard time,” Dr. Ramar said. “People often like the idea of daylight saving time because they think it provides more light, and they dislike the concept of standard time because they think it provides more darkness. The reality is that neither time system provides more light or darkness than the other; it is only the timing that changes.”

Until new legislation is introduced, Dr. Ramar offered some practical advice for navigating seasonal time shifts.

“Beginning 2-3 days before the time change, it can be helpful to gradually adjust sleep and wake times, as well as other daily routines such as meal times,” he said. “After the time change, going outside for some morning light can help adjust the timing of your internal body clock.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Seasonal time change is now up for consideration in the U.S. Congress, prompting sleep medicine specialists to weigh in on the health impact of a major policy change.

As lawmakers in Washington propose an end to seasonal time changes by permanently establishing daylight saving time (DST), the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is pushing for a Congressional hearing so scientists can present evidence in favor of converse legislation – to make standard time the new norm.

According to the AASM, seasonal time changes in either direction have been associated with a range of detrimental health effects; however, the switch from standard time to DST incurs more risk.

“Current evidence best supports the adoption of year-round standard time, which aligns best with human circadian biology and provides distinct benefits for public health and safety,” the AASM noted in a 2020 position statement on DST.

The statement cites a number of studies that have reported associations between the switch to DST and acute, negative health outcomes, including higher rates of hospital admission, cardiovascular morbidity, atrial fibrillation, and stroke. The time shift has been associated with a spectrum of cellular, metabolic, and circadian derangements, from increased production of inflammatory markers, to higher blood pressure, and loss of sleep. These biological effects may have far-reaching consequences, including increased rates of fatal motor accidents in the days following the time change, and even increased volatility in the stock market, which may stem from cognitive deficits.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and others in the U.S. Congress have reintroduced the 2019 Sunshine Protection Act, legislation that would make DST permanent across the country. According to a statement on Sen. Rubio’s website, “The bill reflects the Florida legislature’s 2018 enactment of year-round DST; however, for Florida’s change to apply, a change in the federal statute is required. Fifteen other states – Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming – have passed similar laws, resolutions, or voter initiatives, and dozens more are looking. The legislation, if enacted, would apply to those states [that] currently participate in DST, which most states observe for eight months out of the year.”
 

A stitch in time

“The sudden change in clock time disrupts sleep/wake patterns, decreasing total sleep time and sleep quality, leading to decrements in daytime cognition,” said Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, president of the AASM and a sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 

Emphasizing this point, Dr. Ramar noted a recent study that reported an 18% increase in “patient safety-related incidents associated with human error” among health care workers within a week of the spring time change.

“Irregular bedtimes and wake times disrupt the timing of our circadian rhythms, which can lead to symptoms of insomnia or long-term, excessive daytime sleepiness. Lack of sleep can lead to numerous adverse effects on our minds, including decreased cognitive function, trouble concentrating, and general moodiness,” Dr. Ramar said.

He noted that these impacts may be more significant among certain individuals.

“The daylight saving time changes can be especially problematic for any populations that already experience chronic insufficient sleep or other sleep difficulties,” Dr. Ramar said. “Populations at greatest risk include teenagers, who tend to experience chronic sleep restriction during the school week, and night shift workers, who often struggle to sleep well during daytime hours.”

While fewer studies have evaluated the long-term effects of seasonal time changes, the AASM position statement cited evidence that “the body clock does not adjust to daylight saving time after several months,” possibly because “daylight saving time is less well-aligned with intrinsic human circadian physiology, and it disrupts the natural seasonal adjustment of the human clock due to the effect of late-evening light on the circadian rhythm.”

According to the AASM, permanent DST, as proposed by Sen. Rubio and colleagues, could “result in permanent phase delay, a condition that can also lead to a perpetual discrepancy between the innate biological clock and the extrinsic environmental clock, as well as chronic sleep loss due to early morning social demands that truncate the opportunity to sleep.” This mismatch between sleep/wake cycles and social demands, known as “social jet lag,” has been associated with chronic health risks, including metabolic syndrome, obesity, depression, and cardiovascular disease.
 

Cardiac impacts of seasonal time change

Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, a sleep specialist at Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and lead author of the AASM position statement, highlighted cardiovascular risks in a written statement for this article, noting increased rates of heart attack following the spring time change, and a higher risk of atrial fibrillation.

“Mayo Clinic has not taken a position on this issue,” Dr. Rishi noted. Still, he advocated for permanent standard time as the author of the AASM position statement and vice chair of the AASM public safety committee.

Jay Chudow, MD, and Andrew K. Krumerman, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, lead author and principal author, respectively, of a recent study that reported increased rates of atrial fibrillation admissions after DST transitions, had the same stance.

Pros and cons

Not all sleep experts are convinced. Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, a sleep specialist and director of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Medical Center, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts, Springfield, considers perspectives from both sides of the issue.

“Daylight saving time promotes active lifestyles as people engage in more outdoor activities after work and school, [and] daylight saving time produces economic and safety benefits to society as retail revenues are higher and crimes are lower,” Dr. Farmer said. “Alternatively, moving the clocks forward is a cost burden to the U.S. economy when health issues, decreased productivity, and workplace injuries are considered.”

If one time system is permanently established, Dr. Farmer anticipates divided opinions from patients with sleep issues, regardless of which system is chosen.

“I can tell you, I have a cohort of sleep patients who prefer more evening light and look forward to the spring time change to daylight saving time,” she said. “However, they would not want the sun coming up at 9:00 a.m. in the winter months if we stayed on daylight saving time year-round. Similarly, patients would not want the sun coming up at 4:00 a.m. on the longest day of the year if we stayed on standard time all year round.”

Dr. Farmer called for more research before a decision is made.

“I suggest we need more information about the dangers of staying on daylight saving or standard time year-round because perhaps the current strategy of keeping morning light consistent is not so bad,” she said.
 

Time for a Congressional hearing?

According to Dr. Ramar, the time is now for a Congressional hearing, as lawmakers and the public need to be adequately informed when considering new legislation.

“There are public misconceptions about daylight saving time and standard time,” Dr. Ramar said. “People often like the idea of daylight saving time because they think it provides more light, and they dislike the concept of standard time because they think it provides more darkness. The reality is that neither time system provides more light or darkness than the other; it is only the timing that changes.”

Until new legislation is introduced, Dr. Ramar offered some practical advice for navigating seasonal time shifts.

“Beginning 2-3 days before the time change, it can be helpful to gradually adjust sleep and wake times, as well as other daily routines such as meal times,” he said. “After the time change, going outside for some morning light can help adjust the timing of your internal body clock.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with hypothyroidism treated with the three most common pharmacologic strategies of levothyroxine (LT4) alone, LT4 in combination with triiodothyronine (T3), or desiccated thyroid extract showed no differences in thyroid symptoms or secondary outcomes in a double-blind, randomized study.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“There are now proven good treatment options for the more than 1 in 10 patients with hypothyroidism who continue to experience symptoms of fatigue, mental fogginess, weight gain, and other symptoms despite taking levothyroxine,” first author Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Commenting on the study, Alan P. Farwell, MD, said these new results are a valuable contribution to the understanding of treatment effects. “I think this is an interesting and important study and further studies are needed to clarify the optimal way to treat hypothyroidism,” said Dr. Farwell, who is director of endocrine clinics at Boston University.

Importantly, “the findings are different than studies where the patients are aware of what medication they are receiving,” he stressed in an interview, underscoring the importance of the double-blind design of the trial.

But Anne Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that “the study was small and unlikely to have the statistical power to detect differences that could have been clinically important.”

Nevertheless, she too agreed that the double-blind study design is key: “My experience with patients is [the effects] are affected by patients’ perceptions about their thyroid medication. That is why studies designed so that patients do not know which treatment they are receiving are so important in this area.”
 

Randomized, double-blind comparison

Prior to the widespread availability of the current gold standard hypothyroidism treatment of LT4, the condition was typically treated with desiccated (animal) thyroid extract. And with many patients continuing to have a preference for this therapeutic approach, it is still commonly used.

Additionally, some patients treated with LT4 alone report greater improvements in symptoms with the addition of T3 – despite studies showing no benefits from the two together – leading to many clinicians commonly trying the combination approach.

To compare the efficacy of the three approaches in a prospective, double-blind, cross-over fashion, 75 patients received three therapeutic approaches each for 3 months: desiccated thyroid extract, an LT4/T3 combination, or LT4 alone.

After each 3-month treatment, patients completed a 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire.

There was no significant differences in symptom relief, the primary outcome, between the three treatments (P = .32).

Overall, 45% of patients indicated they preferred desiccated thyroid as their first choice of treatment, 32% preferred LT4/T3 as their first choice, and 23% preferred LT4 alone.

For the secondary endpoints of weight, general health, depression (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory), memory (Wechsler Memory Scale), lipids, and thyroid function, again, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the measures.
 

When switched to desiccated thyroid, many felt ‘much better’

A further exploratory analysis revealed that those who experienced symptoms while taking LT4 alone reported greater alleviation of symptoms with the other two treatments.

“As a whole group, there was no significant difference between the three treatment arms,” Dr. Hoang explained in an interview.

“However, with the subgroup analysis based on the scores of symptom questionnaires, we found that symptomatic patients on LT4 improved while being treated with LT4/T3 or desiccated thyroid,” he said.

Reports of improvements in switching to desiccated thyroid were notable, Dr. Hoang added. “Many patients when switched from LT4 to desiccated thyroid extract said they felt much better, [with] more energy, less mental fogginess, a better outlook, less flair of lupus symptoms, easier to lose weight, etc.”

The study also showed more patients with Hashimoto’s disease preferred desiccated thyroid extract and LT4/T3, compared with LT4 alone, however, the differences were not significant.
 

Treatment adjustments a helpful first step

Dr. Farwell noted that his approach when patients are still reporting symptoms despite LT4 treatment is to first try tweaking the dose.

“In my own practice, I prefer to adjust LT4 dosing first, and on occasion add T3, with a goal of getting both hormone levels in the upper half of the normal range,” he said. “I find that to be a better approach than desiccated thyroid extract. T3 should be taken twice a day due to its half-life.”

The approach is generally successful, he added. “Even those that come in asking for desiccated thyroid extract whom I am able to convince to try LT4/T3 end up being happy with their treatment in the end.

“The key is that you need to spend time discussing the options with patients and come to a consensus as to the therapy that will best resolve their symptoms and that they are most comfortable with,” he concluded.

In response to mounting evidence of different hypothyroidism treatment responses according to various subgroups of patients, experts recently called for the initiation of more thorough clinical trials on the issue of combination therapy, as recently reported by this news organization.

Dr. Hoang reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Farwell and Dr. Cappola reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with hypothyroidism treated with the three most common pharmacologic strategies of levothyroxine (LT4) alone, LT4 in combination with triiodothyronine (T3), or desiccated thyroid extract showed no differences in thyroid symptoms or secondary outcomes in a double-blind, randomized study.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“There are now proven good treatment options for the more than 1 in 10 patients with hypothyroidism who continue to experience symptoms of fatigue, mental fogginess, weight gain, and other symptoms despite taking levothyroxine,” first author Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Commenting on the study, Alan P. Farwell, MD, said these new results are a valuable contribution to the understanding of treatment effects. “I think this is an interesting and important study and further studies are needed to clarify the optimal way to treat hypothyroidism,” said Dr. Farwell, who is director of endocrine clinics at Boston University.

Importantly, “the findings are different than studies where the patients are aware of what medication they are receiving,” he stressed in an interview, underscoring the importance of the double-blind design of the trial.

But Anne Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that “the study was small and unlikely to have the statistical power to detect differences that could have been clinically important.”

Nevertheless, she too agreed that the double-blind study design is key: “My experience with patients is [the effects] are affected by patients’ perceptions about their thyroid medication. That is why studies designed so that patients do not know which treatment they are receiving are so important in this area.”
 

Randomized, double-blind comparison

Prior to the widespread availability of the current gold standard hypothyroidism treatment of LT4, the condition was typically treated with desiccated (animal) thyroid extract. And with many patients continuing to have a preference for this therapeutic approach, it is still commonly used.

Additionally, some patients treated with LT4 alone report greater improvements in symptoms with the addition of T3 – despite studies showing no benefits from the two together – leading to many clinicians commonly trying the combination approach.

To compare the efficacy of the three approaches in a prospective, double-blind, cross-over fashion, 75 patients received three therapeutic approaches each for 3 months: desiccated thyroid extract, an LT4/T3 combination, or LT4 alone.

After each 3-month treatment, patients completed a 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire.

There was no significant differences in symptom relief, the primary outcome, between the three treatments (P = .32).

Overall, 45% of patients indicated they preferred desiccated thyroid as their first choice of treatment, 32% preferred LT4/T3 as their first choice, and 23% preferred LT4 alone.

For the secondary endpoints of weight, general health, depression (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory), memory (Wechsler Memory Scale), lipids, and thyroid function, again, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the measures.
 

When switched to desiccated thyroid, many felt ‘much better’

A further exploratory analysis revealed that those who experienced symptoms while taking LT4 alone reported greater alleviation of symptoms with the other two treatments.

“As a whole group, there was no significant difference between the three treatment arms,” Dr. Hoang explained in an interview.

“However, with the subgroup analysis based on the scores of symptom questionnaires, we found that symptomatic patients on LT4 improved while being treated with LT4/T3 or desiccated thyroid,” he said.

Reports of improvements in switching to desiccated thyroid were notable, Dr. Hoang added. “Many patients when switched from LT4 to desiccated thyroid extract said they felt much better, [with] more energy, less mental fogginess, a better outlook, less flair of lupus symptoms, easier to lose weight, etc.”

The study also showed more patients with Hashimoto’s disease preferred desiccated thyroid extract and LT4/T3, compared with LT4 alone, however, the differences were not significant.
 

Treatment adjustments a helpful first step

Dr. Farwell noted that his approach when patients are still reporting symptoms despite LT4 treatment is to first try tweaking the dose.

“In my own practice, I prefer to adjust LT4 dosing first, and on occasion add T3, with a goal of getting both hormone levels in the upper half of the normal range,” he said. “I find that to be a better approach than desiccated thyroid extract. T3 should be taken twice a day due to its half-life.”

The approach is generally successful, he added. “Even those that come in asking for desiccated thyroid extract whom I am able to convince to try LT4/T3 end up being happy with their treatment in the end.

“The key is that you need to spend time discussing the options with patients and come to a consensus as to the therapy that will best resolve their symptoms and that they are most comfortable with,” he concluded.

In response to mounting evidence of different hypothyroidism treatment responses according to various subgroups of patients, experts recently called for the initiation of more thorough clinical trials on the issue of combination therapy, as recently reported by this news organization.

Dr. Hoang reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Farwell and Dr. Cappola reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with hypothyroidism treated with the three most common pharmacologic strategies of levothyroxine (LT4) alone, LT4 in combination with triiodothyronine (T3), or desiccated thyroid extract showed no differences in thyroid symptoms or secondary outcomes in a double-blind, randomized study.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“There are now proven good treatment options for the more than 1 in 10 patients with hypothyroidism who continue to experience symptoms of fatigue, mental fogginess, weight gain, and other symptoms despite taking levothyroxine,” first author Thanh Duc Hoang, DO, an endocrinologist at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, in Bethesda, Md., said in a press statement.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Commenting on the study, Alan P. Farwell, MD, said these new results are a valuable contribution to the understanding of treatment effects. “I think this is an interesting and important study and further studies are needed to clarify the optimal way to treat hypothyroidism,” said Dr. Farwell, who is director of endocrine clinics at Boston University.

Importantly, “the findings are different than studies where the patients are aware of what medication they are receiving,” he stressed in an interview, underscoring the importance of the double-blind design of the trial.

But Anne Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that “the study was small and unlikely to have the statistical power to detect differences that could have been clinically important.”

Nevertheless, she too agreed that the double-blind study design is key: “My experience with patients is [the effects] are affected by patients’ perceptions about their thyroid medication. That is why studies designed so that patients do not know which treatment they are receiving are so important in this area.”
 

Randomized, double-blind comparison

Prior to the widespread availability of the current gold standard hypothyroidism treatment of LT4, the condition was typically treated with desiccated (animal) thyroid extract. And with many patients continuing to have a preference for this therapeutic approach, it is still commonly used.

Additionally, some patients treated with LT4 alone report greater improvements in symptoms with the addition of T3 – despite studies showing no benefits from the two together – leading to many clinicians commonly trying the combination approach.

To compare the efficacy of the three approaches in a prospective, double-blind, cross-over fashion, 75 patients received three therapeutic approaches each for 3 months: desiccated thyroid extract, an LT4/T3 combination, or LT4 alone.

After each 3-month treatment, patients completed a 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire.

There was no significant differences in symptom relief, the primary outcome, between the three treatments (P = .32).

Overall, 45% of patients indicated they preferred desiccated thyroid as their first choice of treatment, 32% preferred LT4/T3 as their first choice, and 23% preferred LT4 alone.

For the secondary endpoints of weight, general health, depression (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory), memory (Wechsler Memory Scale), lipids, and thyroid function, again, there were no significant differences between groups in any of the measures.
 

When switched to desiccated thyroid, many felt ‘much better’

A further exploratory analysis revealed that those who experienced symptoms while taking LT4 alone reported greater alleviation of symptoms with the other two treatments.

“As a whole group, there was no significant difference between the three treatment arms,” Dr. Hoang explained in an interview.

“However, with the subgroup analysis based on the scores of symptom questionnaires, we found that symptomatic patients on LT4 improved while being treated with LT4/T3 or desiccated thyroid,” he said.

Reports of improvements in switching to desiccated thyroid were notable, Dr. Hoang added. “Many patients when switched from LT4 to desiccated thyroid extract said they felt much better, [with] more energy, less mental fogginess, a better outlook, less flair of lupus symptoms, easier to lose weight, etc.”

The study also showed more patients with Hashimoto’s disease preferred desiccated thyroid extract and LT4/T3, compared with LT4 alone, however, the differences were not significant.
 

Treatment adjustments a helpful first step

Dr. Farwell noted that his approach when patients are still reporting symptoms despite LT4 treatment is to first try tweaking the dose.

“In my own practice, I prefer to adjust LT4 dosing first, and on occasion add T3, with a goal of getting both hormone levels in the upper half of the normal range,” he said. “I find that to be a better approach than desiccated thyroid extract. T3 should be taken twice a day due to its half-life.”

The approach is generally successful, he added. “Even those that come in asking for desiccated thyroid extract whom I am able to convince to try LT4/T3 end up being happy with their treatment in the end.

“The key is that you need to spend time discussing the options with patients and come to a consensus as to the therapy that will best resolve their symptoms and that they are most comfortable with,” he concluded.

In response to mounting evidence of different hypothyroidism treatment responses according to various subgroups of patients, experts recently called for the initiation of more thorough clinical trials on the issue of combination therapy, as recently reported by this news organization.

Dr. Hoang reported being a speaker for Acella Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Farwell and Dr. Cappola reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Postoperative delirium is common in older patients undergoing surgery and often leads to complications including longer length of stay (LOS), increased mortality, functional decline, and dementia. The volunteer-based Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is one of the most widely implemented prevention tools to reduce POD; however, different cultures may not use volunteers in their hospital systems.

Study design: Randomized clinical trial.

Setting: West China Hospital in Chengdu.

Synopsis: This Chinese-based clinical trial evaluated 281 patients aged 70 years or older who underwent elective surgery and were randomized to either t-HELP units or usual-care units. t-HELP patients received three universal protocols that included family-driven interventions of orientation, therapeutic activities, and early mobilization protocols, as well as targeted protocols based on delirium risk factors, while control participants received usual nursing care. The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the t-HELP group, compared with the control group (2.6% vs. 19.4%), which was also associated with a shorter LOS. Patients were also noted to have less cognitive and functional decline that was sustained after discharge.

Bottom line: For hospitals that do not use volunteers in delirium prevention, involving family appears to be effective in reducing POD and maintaining physical and cognitive function post operatively.

Citation: Wang YY et al. Effect of the Tailored, Family-Involved Hospital Elder Life Program on postoperative delirium and function in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4446.

Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Postoperative delirium is common in older patients undergoing surgery and often leads to complications including longer length of stay (LOS), increased mortality, functional decline, and dementia. The volunteer-based Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is one of the most widely implemented prevention tools to reduce POD; however, different cultures may not use volunteers in their hospital systems.

Study design: Randomized clinical trial.

Setting: West China Hospital in Chengdu.

Synopsis: This Chinese-based clinical trial evaluated 281 patients aged 70 years or older who underwent elective surgery and were randomized to either t-HELP units or usual-care units. t-HELP patients received three universal protocols that included family-driven interventions of orientation, therapeutic activities, and early mobilization protocols, as well as targeted protocols based on delirium risk factors, while control participants received usual nursing care. The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the t-HELP group, compared with the control group (2.6% vs. 19.4%), which was also associated with a shorter LOS. Patients were also noted to have less cognitive and functional decline that was sustained after discharge.

Bottom line: For hospitals that do not use volunteers in delirium prevention, involving family appears to be effective in reducing POD and maintaining physical and cognitive function post operatively.

Citation: Wang YY et al. Effect of the Tailored, Family-Involved Hospital Elder Life Program on postoperative delirium and function in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4446.

Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Postoperative delirium is common in older patients undergoing surgery and often leads to complications including longer length of stay (LOS), increased mortality, functional decline, and dementia. The volunteer-based Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is one of the most widely implemented prevention tools to reduce POD; however, different cultures may not use volunteers in their hospital systems.

Study design: Randomized clinical trial.

Setting: West China Hospital in Chengdu.

Synopsis: This Chinese-based clinical trial evaluated 281 patients aged 70 years or older who underwent elective surgery and were randomized to either t-HELP units or usual-care units. t-HELP patients received three universal protocols that included family-driven interventions of orientation, therapeutic activities, and early mobilization protocols, as well as targeted protocols based on delirium risk factors, while control participants received usual nursing care. The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the t-HELP group, compared with the control group (2.6% vs. 19.4%), which was also associated with a shorter LOS. Patients were also noted to have less cognitive and functional decline that was sustained after discharge.

Bottom line: For hospitals that do not use volunteers in delirium prevention, involving family appears to be effective in reducing POD and maintaining physical and cognitive function post operatively.

Citation: Wang YY et al. Effect of the Tailored, Family-Involved Hospital Elder Life Program on postoperative delirium and function in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4446.

Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.