Rheumatology News

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patient characteristics of men and women with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) appear to differ, yet women with the condition have a significantly lower response rate to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to results from a prospective cohort study.

Despite these similarities between the sexes, first author Regula Neuenschwander of the department of rheumatology at Zurich University Hospital and colleagues reported in Arthritis Research & Therapy that women treated with a TNF inhibitor were 81% less likely than men to have a 40% or greater improvement on Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) response criteria by 1 year. Statistically significant differences at baseline included women’s longer time to nr-axSpA diagnosis, slightly lower HLA-B27 positivity rate, higher mean baseline Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score, higher rate of current enthesitis, and lower mean body mass index (BMI).

With radiographic disease, women have been reported to more often “present with higher self-reported disease activity and functional impairment, a lower quality of life, less severe spinal radiographic changes, and more peripheral disease (arthritis and enthesitis),” whereas men more often have “objective markers of inflammation, such as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation of the axial skeleton,” the researchers wrote. Radiographic disease also tends to occur more often in men, and some studies have reported men to have a greater response to TNF inhibitors. However, the current study sought to understand whether these differences between sexes exist in patients with nonradiographic disease.

The researchers included 495 patients (231 men and 264 women) with a clinical diagnosis of nr-axSpA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort during 2005-2018 who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria for axSpA and lacked definite radiographic sacroiliac joint changes according to the modified New York criteria. The radiographs were centrally digitized and independently scored in a blinded manner by a rotating group of two readers (out of six total).

Both women and men had a mean age of around 28 years at symptom onset, but women had a significantly longer diagnostic delay of 6.0 years vs. 4.7 years. Also, women were significantly less likely to be HLA-B27 positive (67.0% vs. 76.5%) and had a significantly higher mean BASDAI score at baseline (5.3 vs. 4.6). More women than men also showed signs of current enthesitis (79.6% vs. 64.0%), and women had a lower mean BMI (24.3 vs. 25.7 kg/m²). Concomitant clinically diagnosed fibromyalgia was higher in women than in men (13.1% vs. 2.7%), and when patients with fibromylagia (n = 25) were excluded the remaining differences in BASDAI were mainly because of fatigue and enthesitis, both of which occurred more often in women than in men.

A total of 163 patients without fibromyalgia started a first TNF inhibitor, and 120 had a follow-up visit at 1 year. An ASAS40 response is defined as 40% improvement in at least three of four domains on the ASAS response criteria: patient global assessment of disease activity for the past week, patient assessment of back pain over the past week, function (as assessed on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (mean of BASDAI questions 5 and 6). An ASAS40 response was achieved by 17% of women and 38% of men (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.93), and this difference became more pronounced after adjustment for baseline differences in BASDAI, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, BMI, and diagnostic delay (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.61). ASAS40 response rates were lower for patients with higher BMI but better for those with higher BASDAI levels. The researchers found comparable results when they excluded patients who stopped a TNF inhibitor because of other reasons for discontinuation and also when they counted patients who discontinued the TNF inhibitor because of remission as responders.

The sex difference in nr-axSpA patients’ treatment response to TNF inhibitors was even larger than the 56% lower odds the same group of researchers reported finding between women and men with radiographic disease in an earlier report, according to the new paper.

Given that this study and others in nr-axSpA patients have found higher remission rates to TNF inhibitor therapy in men versus women, the “current study therefore adds to available data to support the claim for future randomized controlled trials in axSpA to be sufficiently powered to detect potential sex differences,” the researchers said.

The authors acknowledged that a lack of MRI scans available for central scoring made it impossible to evaluate potential imaging misinterpretation, such as possible abnormalities mimicking mild sacroiliitis that have been reported to be more prevalent in women. It is also possible that some patients with fibromyalgia were missed because of screening for the condition by expert opinion of the treating rheumatologist “on a comorbidity questionnaire and not through fulfillment of classification criteria for fibromyalgia or via the use of a standardized fibromyalgia questionnaire,” they said.

The study was funded by the Stiftung für Rheumaforschung in Zurich. The Swiss Clinical Quality Management Foundation is supported by the Swiss Society of Rheumatology and by 11 pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors reported receiving consulting and/or speaking fees from some of those same companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Neuenschwander R et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22(1):233.

Few patient characteristics of men and women with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) appear to differ, yet women with the condition have a significantly lower response rate to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to results from a prospective cohort study.

Despite these similarities between the sexes, first author Regula Neuenschwander of the department of rheumatology at Zurich University Hospital and colleagues reported in Arthritis Research & Therapy that women treated with a TNF inhibitor were 81% less likely than men to have a 40% or greater improvement on Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) response criteria by 1 year. Statistically significant differences at baseline included women’s longer time to nr-axSpA diagnosis, slightly lower HLA-B27 positivity rate, higher mean baseline Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score, higher rate of current enthesitis, and lower mean body mass index (BMI).

With radiographic disease, women have been reported to more often “present with higher self-reported disease activity and functional impairment, a lower quality of life, less severe spinal radiographic changes, and more peripheral disease (arthritis and enthesitis),” whereas men more often have “objective markers of inflammation, such as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation of the axial skeleton,” the researchers wrote. Radiographic disease also tends to occur more often in men, and some studies have reported men to have a greater response to TNF inhibitors. However, the current study sought to understand whether these differences between sexes exist in patients with nonradiographic disease.

The researchers included 495 patients (231 men and 264 women) with a clinical diagnosis of nr-axSpA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort during 2005-2018 who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria for axSpA and lacked definite radiographic sacroiliac joint changes according to the modified New York criteria. The radiographs were centrally digitized and independently scored in a blinded manner by a rotating group of two readers (out of six total).

Both women and men had a mean age of around 28 years at symptom onset, but women had a significantly longer diagnostic delay of 6.0 years vs. 4.7 years. Also, women were significantly less likely to be HLA-B27 positive (67.0% vs. 76.5%) and had a significantly higher mean BASDAI score at baseline (5.3 vs. 4.6). More women than men also showed signs of current enthesitis (79.6% vs. 64.0%), and women had a lower mean BMI (24.3 vs. 25.7 kg/m²). Concomitant clinically diagnosed fibromyalgia was higher in women than in men (13.1% vs. 2.7%), and when patients with fibromylagia (n = 25) were excluded the remaining differences in BASDAI were mainly because of fatigue and enthesitis, both of which occurred more often in women than in men.

A total of 163 patients without fibromyalgia started a first TNF inhibitor, and 120 had a follow-up visit at 1 year. An ASAS40 response is defined as 40% improvement in at least three of four domains on the ASAS response criteria: patient global assessment of disease activity for the past week, patient assessment of back pain over the past week, function (as assessed on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (mean of BASDAI questions 5 and 6). An ASAS40 response was achieved by 17% of women and 38% of men (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.93), and this difference became more pronounced after adjustment for baseline differences in BASDAI, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, BMI, and diagnostic delay (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.61). ASAS40 response rates were lower for patients with higher BMI but better for those with higher BASDAI levels. The researchers found comparable results when they excluded patients who stopped a TNF inhibitor because of other reasons for discontinuation and also when they counted patients who discontinued the TNF inhibitor because of remission as responders.

The sex difference in nr-axSpA patients’ treatment response to TNF inhibitors was even larger than the 56% lower odds the same group of researchers reported finding between women and men with radiographic disease in an earlier report, according to the new paper.

Given that this study and others in nr-axSpA patients have found higher remission rates to TNF inhibitor therapy in men versus women, the “current study therefore adds to available data to support the claim for future randomized controlled trials in axSpA to be sufficiently powered to detect potential sex differences,” the researchers said.

The authors acknowledged that a lack of MRI scans available for central scoring made it impossible to evaluate potential imaging misinterpretation, such as possible abnormalities mimicking mild sacroiliitis that have been reported to be more prevalent in women. It is also possible that some patients with fibromyalgia were missed because of screening for the condition by expert opinion of the treating rheumatologist “on a comorbidity questionnaire and not through fulfillment of classification criteria for fibromyalgia or via the use of a standardized fibromyalgia questionnaire,” they said.

The study was funded by the Stiftung für Rheumaforschung in Zurich. The Swiss Clinical Quality Management Foundation is supported by the Swiss Society of Rheumatology and by 11 pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors reported receiving consulting and/or speaking fees from some of those same companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Neuenschwander R et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22(1):233.

Few patient characteristics of men and women with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) appear to differ, yet women with the condition have a significantly lower response rate to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to results from a prospective cohort study.

Despite these similarities between the sexes, first author Regula Neuenschwander of the department of rheumatology at Zurich University Hospital and colleagues reported in Arthritis Research & Therapy that women treated with a TNF inhibitor were 81% less likely than men to have a 40% or greater improvement on Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) response criteria by 1 year. Statistically significant differences at baseline included women’s longer time to nr-axSpA diagnosis, slightly lower HLA-B27 positivity rate, higher mean baseline Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score, higher rate of current enthesitis, and lower mean body mass index (BMI).

With radiographic disease, women have been reported to more often “present with higher self-reported disease activity and functional impairment, a lower quality of life, less severe spinal radiographic changes, and more peripheral disease (arthritis and enthesitis),” whereas men more often have “objective markers of inflammation, such as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation of the axial skeleton,” the researchers wrote. Radiographic disease also tends to occur more often in men, and some studies have reported men to have a greater response to TNF inhibitors. However, the current study sought to understand whether these differences between sexes exist in patients with nonradiographic disease.

The researchers included 495 patients (231 men and 264 women) with a clinical diagnosis of nr-axSpA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort during 2005-2018 who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria for axSpA and lacked definite radiographic sacroiliac joint changes according to the modified New York criteria. The radiographs were centrally digitized and independently scored in a blinded manner by a rotating group of two readers (out of six total).

Both women and men had a mean age of around 28 years at symptom onset, but women had a significantly longer diagnostic delay of 6.0 years vs. 4.7 years. Also, women were significantly less likely to be HLA-B27 positive (67.0% vs. 76.5%) and had a significantly higher mean BASDAI score at baseline (5.3 vs. 4.6). More women than men also showed signs of current enthesitis (79.6% vs. 64.0%), and women had a lower mean BMI (24.3 vs. 25.7 kg/m²). Concomitant clinically diagnosed fibromyalgia was higher in women than in men (13.1% vs. 2.7%), and when patients with fibromylagia (n = 25) were excluded the remaining differences in BASDAI were mainly because of fatigue and enthesitis, both of which occurred more often in women than in men.

A total of 163 patients without fibromyalgia started a first TNF inhibitor, and 120 had a follow-up visit at 1 year. An ASAS40 response is defined as 40% improvement in at least three of four domains on the ASAS response criteria: patient global assessment of disease activity for the past week, patient assessment of back pain over the past week, function (as assessed on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (mean of BASDAI questions 5 and 6). An ASAS40 response was achieved by 17% of women and 38% of men (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.93), and this difference became more pronounced after adjustment for baseline differences in BASDAI, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, BMI, and diagnostic delay (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.61). ASAS40 response rates were lower for patients with higher BMI but better for those with higher BASDAI levels. The researchers found comparable results when they excluded patients who stopped a TNF inhibitor because of other reasons for discontinuation and also when they counted patients who discontinued the TNF inhibitor because of remission as responders.

The sex difference in nr-axSpA patients’ treatment response to TNF inhibitors was even larger than the 56% lower odds the same group of researchers reported finding between women and men with radiographic disease in an earlier report, according to the new paper.

Given that this study and others in nr-axSpA patients have found higher remission rates to TNF inhibitor therapy in men versus women, the “current study therefore adds to available data to support the claim for future randomized controlled trials in axSpA to be sufficiently powered to detect potential sex differences,” the researchers said.

The authors acknowledged that a lack of MRI scans available for central scoring made it impossible to evaluate potential imaging misinterpretation, such as possible abnormalities mimicking mild sacroiliitis that have been reported to be more prevalent in women. It is also possible that some patients with fibromyalgia were missed because of screening for the condition by expert opinion of the treating rheumatologist “on a comorbidity questionnaire and not through fulfillment of classification criteria for fibromyalgia or via the use of a standardized fibromyalgia questionnaire,” they said.

The study was funded by the Stiftung für Rheumaforschung in Zurich. The Swiss Clinical Quality Management Foundation is supported by the Swiss Society of Rheumatology and by 11 pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors reported receiving consulting and/or speaking fees from some of those same companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Neuenschwander R et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22(1):233.

Patients with systemic sclerosis have variable disease progression but often experience debilitating fatigue, pain, and digestive issues – and they’re extremely concerned about progressive organ damage, according to those who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The virtual meeting was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs, and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
 

Patients rate their most impactful symptoms

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs a scleroderma research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, attended the meeting after giving an opening presentation on the disease to FDA officials, patients, and other participants. In a later interview, he said that patients’ ratings of their most impactful symptoms was especially striking.

Raynaud’s phenomenon, digestive symptoms, and fatigue were the top three answers to a poll question that asked patients what symptom had the most significant impact on daily life, he noted, “and none of these are being [strongly] addressed right now [in clinical trials] apart from Raynaud’s phenomenon, for which there are some trials ongoing.”

He and other researchers are “struggling with what outcomes measures to use [in their studies],” said Dr. Khanna, the Frederick G.L. Huetwell Professor of Rheumatology at the University. “My takeaway from the meeting as a clinical trialist is that we should be paying close attention to the symptoms that patients tell us are the most important. We should be including these in our trial designs as secondary endpoints, if not primary endpoints. We have not done that [thus far], really.”

Approximately 200,000 patients in the United States have scleroderma, and approximately 75,000-80,000 of these patients have systemic scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, Dr. Khanna said in his opening presentation. Each year, he estimates, about 6,000 new diagnoses of systemic sclerosis are made.

More than 200 people – patients, FDA officials, and others – participated in the PFDD meeting. Patients participated in one of two panels – one focused on health effects and daily impacts, and the other on treatments – or submitted input electronically. All were invited to answer poll questions.

Raj Nair, MD, one of eight FDA leaders attending the meeting, noted in closing remarks that the pain experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis includes severe pain from Raynaud’s phenomenon and pain caused by digital ulcers and by calcinosis. “We heard about how paralyzing the pain from calcinosis is, and that there are very few options for alleviating this pain,” said Dr. Nair, of the division of rheumatology and transplant medicine.

Another takeaway, he said, is that the “fatigue can be severe and debilitating, leading to days where it is impossible to get out of bed,” and that digestive symptoms can also be severe. “Reflux,” he noted, “requires significant medical intervention.”
 

Patients describe their experiences

Rosemary Lyons, diagnosed with scleroderma 35 years ago, explained that while her skin is no longer hardened, she is overly sensitive to fabrics and skin care products and has difficulty with sleeping and eating. She moved away from family in the Northeast to live in the South where the climate is warmer, but even on a 90-degree night she needs a blanket and two comforters to curb the cold and attempt to sleep.

Impaired gastrointestinal motility has made food her “biggest problem” for the past 10 years, and because of GI symptoms, she can eat only one meal a day. She also experiences fainting, brain fog, and severe fatigue. On a good day, Ms. Lyons noted, she sometimes opts to do some house chores “knowing that I’ll have 1-3 days of recovery.”

Another patient, Amy Harding, said that 22 years after her scleroderma diagnosis, “the calcinosis I get in my fingers, elbows, toes, and ears tops all the prior symptoms.” The skin tightening and digital ulcers that she experienced in the first 10 years have tapered off, and while Raynaud’s symptoms and heartburn have worsened, they are at least partly manageable with medications, unlike the pain from calcinosis.
 

Treating symptoms vs. disease may be key in risk-benefit analysis

In questions after patient presentations, FDA officials probed for more perspective on issues such as how fatigue should be assessed, the differences between fatigue and brain fog, the impact of calcinosis on functioning, and how much risk patients would be willing to assume from treatments that have side effects and that may or may not modulate the disease and slow disease progression.

Most patients said in response to an FDA poll question that they definitely (almost 40%) or possibly (almost 50%) would be willing to try a hypothetical new self-injectable medication if it were shown to reduce their most impactful symptoms but had side effects.

“I think what [we’ve been hearing] today is that whether we’re working on the symptoms or the disease itself is [the key]” to patients’ risk-benefit analysis, said meeting moderator Capt. Robyn Bent, RN, MS, of the U.S. Public Health Service, and director of the PFDD.

Anita Devine, diagnosed 13 years ago with systemic sclerosis, was one of several panel members who said she would accept more bothersome treatment side effects and risks “if the gain was control of disease progression and overall quality of life ... and organ preservation.” Ms. Devine, who has needed kidney dialysis and multiple hand surgeries, noted that she previously took anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory agents “to try to stem the course of my disease, but unfortunately the disease did not abate.”

Treatments for systemic sclerosis include vasodilators, immunosuppressive medications, antifibrotic therapies, and stem cell transplants, Dr. Khanna said in his opening remarks.

Trials of drugs for scleroderma have focused on early disease that may be amenable to treatment, with the exception of trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which affects some patients with systemic sclerosis. There are multiple FDA-approved drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and more trials are underway.

Outcomes such as pain and fatigue are included in many of the trials currently underway, but they tend to be lower-level secondary outcomes measures that cannot be incorporated into drug labeling or are more “exploratory in nature,” Dr. Khanna said in the interview.

Dr. Khanna disclosed that he is the chief medical officer (an equity position) for CiVi Biopharma/Eicos Sciences Inc., which is developing a drug for Raynaud’s, and serves as a consultant and grant recipient for numerous companies that make or are developing drugs for systemic sclerosis.

The FDA will accept patient comments until Dec. 15, 2020, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report, Ms. Bent said.

Patients with systemic sclerosis have variable disease progression but often experience debilitating fatigue, pain, and digestive issues – and they’re extremely concerned about progressive organ damage, according to those who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The virtual meeting was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs, and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
 

Patients rate their most impactful symptoms

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs a scleroderma research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, attended the meeting after giving an opening presentation on the disease to FDA officials, patients, and other participants. In a later interview, he said that patients’ ratings of their most impactful symptoms was especially striking.

Raynaud’s phenomenon, digestive symptoms, and fatigue were the top three answers to a poll question that asked patients what symptom had the most significant impact on daily life, he noted, “and none of these are being [strongly] addressed right now [in clinical trials] apart from Raynaud’s phenomenon, for which there are some trials ongoing.”

He and other researchers are “struggling with what outcomes measures to use [in their studies],” said Dr. Khanna, the Frederick G.L. Huetwell Professor of Rheumatology at the University. “My takeaway from the meeting as a clinical trialist is that we should be paying close attention to the symptoms that patients tell us are the most important. We should be including these in our trial designs as secondary endpoints, if not primary endpoints. We have not done that [thus far], really.”

Approximately 200,000 patients in the United States have scleroderma, and approximately 75,000-80,000 of these patients have systemic scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, Dr. Khanna said in his opening presentation. Each year, he estimates, about 6,000 new diagnoses of systemic sclerosis are made.

More than 200 people – patients, FDA officials, and others – participated in the PFDD meeting. Patients participated in one of two panels – one focused on health effects and daily impacts, and the other on treatments – or submitted input electronically. All were invited to answer poll questions.

Raj Nair, MD, one of eight FDA leaders attending the meeting, noted in closing remarks that the pain experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis includes severe pain from Raynaud’s phenomenon and pain caused by digital ulcers and by calcinosis. “We heard about how paralyzing the pain from calcinosis is, and that there are very few options for alleviating this pain,” said Dr. Nair, of the division of rheumatology and transplant medicine.

Another takeaway, he said, is that the “fatigue can be severe and debilitating, leading to days where it is impossible to get out of bed,” and that digestive symptoms can also be severe. “Reflux,” he noted, “requires significant medical intervention.”
 

Patients describe their experiences

Rosemary Lyons, diagnosed with scleroderma 35 years ago, explained that while her skin is no longer hardened, she is overly sensitive to fabrics and skin care products and has difficulty with sleeping and eating. She moved away from family in the Northeast to live in the South where the climate is warmer, but even on a 90-degree night she needs a blanket and two comforters to curb the cold and attempt to sleep.

Impaired gastrointestinal motility has made food her “biggest problem” for the past 10 years, and because of GI symptoms, she can eat only one meal a day. She also experiences fainting, brain fog, and severe fatigue. On a good day, Ms. Lyons noted, she sometimes opts to do some house chores “knowing that I’ll have 1-3 days of recovery.”

Another patient, Amy Harding, said that 22 years after her scleroderma diagnosis, “the calcinosis I get in my fingers, elbows, toes, and ears tops all the prior symptoms.” The skin tightening and digital ulcers that she experienced in the first 10 years have tapered off, and while Raynaud’s symptoms and heartburn have worsened, they are at least partly manageable with medications, unlike the pain from calcinosis.
 

Treating symptoms vs. disease may be key in risk-benefit analysis

In questions after patient presentations, FDA officials probed for more perspective on issues such as how fatigue should be assessed, the differences between fatigue and brain fog, the impact of calcinosis on functioning, and how much risk patients would be willing to assume from treatments that have side effects and that may or may not modulate the disease and slow disease progression.

Most patients said in response to an FDA poll question that they definitely (almost 40%) or possibly (almost 50%) would be willing to try a hypothetical new self-injectable medication if it were shown to reduce their most impactful symptoms but had side effects.

“I think what [we’ve been hearing] today is that whether we’re working on the symptoms or the disease itself is [the key]” to patients’ risk-benefit analysis, said meeting moderator Capt. Robyn Bent, RN, MS, of the U.S. Public Health Service, and director of the PFDD.

Anita Devine, diagnosed 13 years ago with systemic sclerosis, was one of several panel members who said she would accept more bothersome treatment side effects and risks “if the gain was control of disease progression and overall quality of life ... and organ preservation.” Ms. Devine, who has needed kidney dialysis and multiple hand surgeries, noted that she previously took anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory agents “to try to stem the course of my disease, but unfortunately the disease did not abate.”

Treatments for systemic sclerosis include vasodilators, immunosuppressive medications, antifibrotic therapies, and stem cell transplants, Dr. Khanna said in his opening remarks.

Trials of drugs for scleroderma have focused on early disease that may be amenable to treatment, with the exception of trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which affects some patients with systemic sclerosis. There are multiple FDA-approved drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and more trials are underway.

Outcomes such as pain and fatigue are included in many of the trials currently underway, but they tend to be lower-level secondary outcomes measures that cannot be incorporated into drug labeling or are more “exploratory in nature,” Dr. Khanna said in the interview.

Dr. Khanna disclosed that he is the chief medical officer (an equity position) for CiVi Biopharma/Eicos Sciences Inc., which is developing a drug for Raynaud’s, and serves as a consultant and grant recipient for numerous companies that make or are developing drugs for systemic sclerosis.

The FDA will accept patient comments until Dec. 15, 2020, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report, Ms. Bent said.

Patients with systemic sclerosis have variable disease progression but often experience debilitating fatigue, pain, and digestive issues – and they’re extremely concerned about progressive organ damage, according to those who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The virtual meeting was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs, and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
 

Patients rate their most impactful symptoms

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs a scleroderma research program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, attended the meeting after giving an opening presentation on the disease to FDA officials, patients, and other participants. In a later interview, he said that patients’ ratings of their most impactful symptoms was especially striking.

Raynaud’s phenomenon, digestive symptoms, and fatigue were the top three answers to a poll question that asked patients what symptom had the most significant impact on daily life, he noted, “and none of these are being [strongly] addressed right now [in clinical trials] apart from Raynaud’s phenomenon, for which there are some trials ongoing.”

He and other researchers are “struggling with what outcomes measures to use [in their studies],” said Dr. Khanna, the Frederick G.L. Huetwell Professor of Rheumatology at the University. “My takeaway from the meeting as a clinical trialist is that we should be paying close attention to the symptoms that patients tell us are the most important. We should be including these in our trial designs as secondary endpoints, if not primary endpoints. We have not done that [thus far], really.”

Approximately 200,000 patients in the United States have scleroderma, and approximately 75,000-80,000 of these patients have systemic scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, Dr. Khanna said in his opening presentation. Each year, he estimates, about 6,000 new diagnoses of systemic sclerosis are made.

More than 200 people – patients, FDA officials, and others – participated in the PFDD meeting. Patients participated in one of two panels – one focused on health effects and daily impacts, and the other on treatments – or submitted input electronically. All were invited to answer poll questions.

Raj Nair, MD, one of eight FDA leaders attending the meeting, noted in closing remarks that the pain experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis includes severe pain from Raynaud’s phenomenon and pain caused by digital ulcers and by calcinosis. “We heard about how paralyzing the pain from calcinosis is, and that there are very few options for alleviating this pain,” said Dr. Nair, of the division of rheumatology and transplant medicine.

Another takeaway, he said, is that the “fatigue can be severe and debilitating, leading to days where it is impossible to get out of bed,” and that digestive symptoms can also be severe. “Reflux,” he noted, “requires significant medical intervention.”
 

Patients describe their experiences

Rosemary Lyons, diagnosed with scleroderma 35 years ago, explained that while her skin is no longer hardened, she is overly sensitive to fabrics and skin care products and has difficulty with sleeping and eating. She moved away from family in the Northeast to live in the South where the climate is warmer, but even on a 90-degree night she needs a blanket and two comforters to curb the cold and attempt to sleep.

Impaired gastrointestinal motility has made food her “biggest problem” for the past 10 years, and because of GI symptoms, she can eat only one meal a day. She also experiences fainting, brain fog, and severe fatigue. On a good day, Ms. Lyons noted, she sometimes opts to do some house chores “knowing that I’ll have 1-3 days of recovery.”

Another patient, Amy Harding, said that 22 years after her scleroderma diagnosis, “the calcinosis I get in my fingers, elbows, toes, and ears tops all the prior symptoms.” The skin tightening and digital ulcers that she experienced in the first 10 years have tapered off, and while Raynaud’s symptoms and heartburn have worsened, they are at least partly manageable with medications, unlike the pain from calcinosis.
 

Treating symptoms vs. disease may be key in risk-benefit analysis

In questions after patient presentations, FDA officials probed for more perspective on issues such as how fatigue should be assessed, the differences between fatigue and brain fog, the impact of calcinosis on functioning, and how much risk patients would be willing to assume from treatments that have side effects and that may or may not modulate the disease and slow disease progression.

Most patients said in response to an FDA poll question that they definitely (almost 40%) or possibly (almost 50%) would be willing to try a hypothetical new self-injectable medication if it were shown to reduce their most impactful symptoms but had side effects.

“I think what [we’ve been hearing] today is that whether we’re working on the symptoms or the disease itself is [the key]” to patients’ risk-benefit analysis, said meeting moderator Capt. Robyn Bent, RN, MS, of the U.S. Public Health Service, and director of the PFDD.

Anita Devine, diagnosed 13 years ago with systemic sclerosis, was one of several panel members who said she would accept more bothersome treatment side effects and risks “if the gain was control of disease progression and overall quality of life ... and organ preservation.” Ms. Devine, who has needed kidney dialysis and multiple hand surgeries, noted that she previously took anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory agents “to try to stem the course of my disease, but unfortunately the disease did not abate.”

Treatments for systemic sclerosis include vasodilators, immunosuppressive medications, antifibrotic therapies, and stem cell transplants, Dr. Khanna said in his opening remarks.

Trials of drugs for scleroderma have focused on early disease that may be amenable to treatment, with the exception of trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension, which affects some patients with systemic sclerosis. There are multiple FDA-approved drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension and more trials are underway.

Outcomes such as pain and fatigue are included in many of the trials currently underway, but they tend to be lower-level secondary outcomes measures that cannot be incorporated into drug labeling or are more “exploratory in nature,” Dr. Khanna said in the interview.

Dr. Khanna disclosed that he is the chief medical officer (an equity position) for CiVi Biopharma/Eicos Sciences Inc., which is developing a drug for Raynaud’s, and serves as a consultant and grant recipient for numerous companies that make or are developing drugs for systemic sclerosis.

The FDA will accept patient comments until Dec. 15, 2020, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report, Ms. Bent said.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Non-White patient participation in phase 3 therapeutic trials for plaque psoriasis is less than 15%, according to a recently published analysis of data from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The exact figure drawn from the survey of 82 trials was 14.2%, but 20 (24%) of the trials did not include ethnoracial data at all, and only 65% of those with data had complete data, according to a report in the British Journal of Dermatology by a team of investigators from the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The remaining studies reported the percentage of white participants only or white participants and one additional ethnoracial group,” reported the investigators, led by Vidhatha D. Reddy, a medical student at UCSF.

The investigators broke down participation by race in all phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials that enrolled adults and had posted results by May 2020. Data from trials of medications yet to be approved were excluded.

Most trials were multinational. The medications evaluated included 11 biologics, 10 topicals, 2 oral systemic agents, and a phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor. The 82 trials included in this analysis enrolled 48,846 collectively.

From trials that identified race, 85.8% of 39,161 participants were White, 3.09% of 25,565 patients were Black, 19.55% of 11,364 patients were Hispanic or Latino, and 9.21% of 30,009 patients were Asian. Of trials that included Native Americans or Pacific Islanders, fewer than 2% of participants represented this category.

Non-White patients remain underrepresented even when recognizing differences in the prevalence of psoriasis. For example, one recent survey found the U.S, prevalence of psoriasis to be about half as great in Blacks as it is in Whites (1.9% vs. 3.9%), but the representation of Blacks in the phase 3 trials evaluated by Mr. Reddy and colleagues was more than 20 times lower.

There are many reasons to suspect that lack of diversification in psoriasis trials is impeding optimal care in those underrepresented. Of several examples offered by the authors, one involved differential responses to adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with genetic variants in the BCL2 gene, but the authors reported racially associated genetic differences are not uncommon.

“Estimates have shown that approximately one-fifth of newly developed medications demonstrate interracial/ethnic variability in regard to various factors, such as pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy profiles, dosing, and pharmacogenetics,” Mr. Reddy and his coinvestigators stated.

Although racial diversity in the design and recruitment for clinical trials has not been a priority in trials involving psoriasis, other skin diseases, or most diseases in general, the authors cited some evidence that this is changing.

“Since 2017, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been required to report race and ethnicity of participants following an amendment to the Health Revitalization Act,” according to the authors, who suggested that other such initiatives are needed. They advocated “explicit goals to increase recruitment of people of color” as a standard step in clinical trial conduct.

Hypertension trials were cited as an example in which diversity has made a difference.

“Although Black patients are at an elevated risk of developing hypertension, it was not until the enrollment of a substantial proportion of black participants in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) that enough data on Black patients were available to make specific treatment recommendations in this population,” they noted.
 

Impossible to know treatment benefits without ethnoracial data

Penn Medicine

Another investigator who has considered this issue, Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“Lack of diversity among participants in phase 3 clinical trials for psoriasis is a problem,” said Dr. Takeshita, who led a study of racial differences in perceptions of psoriasis therapies that was published last year.

In that study, “my research group not only found differences in perceptions about biologics between Black and White patients with psoriasis, but we have also shown that Black patients with psoriasis are less likely to receive biologic treatment,” she reported. There are many explanations. For example, she found in another study that Black patients are underrepresented in direct-to-consumer advertisements for biologics.

This problem is not unique to psoriasis. Underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnoracial groups is true of other skin diseases and many diseases in general, according to Dr. Takeshita. However, she cautioned that the 3% figure for Black participation in psoriasis trials reported by Mr. Reddy and colleagues is not necessarily reflective of trials in the United States.

“This study included international study sites that are recruiting patients from populations with different demographics than the U.S.,” she noted. By including sites with only Asian patients or countries with few Blacks in the population, it dilutes Black representation. She would expect the exact proportion of Black participants to be somewhat higher even if they are “still likely to be underrepresented” if the analysis has been limited to U.S. data.

The research had no funding source. Three of the nine authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Reddy VD et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep 17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19468.

Non-White patient participation in phase 3 therapeutic trials for plaque psoriasis is less than 15%, according to a recently published analysis of data from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The exact figure drawn from the survey of 82 trials was 14.2%, but 20 (24%) of the trials did not include ethnoracial data at all, and only 65% of those with data had complete data, according to a report in the British Journal of Dermatology by a team of investigators from the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The remaining studies reported the percentage of white participants only or white participants and one additional ethnoracial group,” reported the investigators, led by Vidhatha D. Reddy, a medical student at UCSF.

The investigators broke down participation by race in all phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials that enrolled adults and had posted results by May 2020. Data from trials of medications yet to be approved were excluded.

Most trials were multinational. The medications evaluated included 11 biologics, 10 topicals, 2 oral systemic agents, and a phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor. The 82 trials included in this analysis enrolled 48,846 collectively.

From trials that identified race, 85.8% of 39,161 participants were White, 3.09% of 25,565 patients were Black, 19.55% of 11,364 patients were Hispanic or Latino, and 9.21% of 30,009 patients were Asian. Of trials that included Native Americans or Pacific Islanders, fewer than 2% of participants represented this category.

Non-White patients remain underrepresented even when recognizing differences in the prevalence of psoriasis. For example, one recent survey found the U.S, prevalence of psoriasis to be about half as great in Blacks as it is in Whites (1.9% vs. 3.9%), but the representation of Blacks in the phase 3 trials evaluated by Mr. Reddy and colleagues was more than 20 times lower.

There are many reasons to suspect that lack of diversification in psoriasis trials is impeding optimal care in those underrepresented. Of several examples offered by the authors, one involved differential responses to adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with genetic variants in the BCL2 gene, but the authors reported racially associated genetic differences are not uncommon.

“Estimates have shown that approximately one-fifth of newly developed medications demonstrate interracial/ethnic variability in regard to various factors, such as pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy profiles, dosing, and pharmacogenetics,” Mr. Reddy and his coinvestigators stated.

Although racial diversity in the design and recruitment for clinical trials has not been a priority in trials involving psoriasis, other skin diseases, or most diseases in general, the authors cited some evidence that this is changing.

“Since 2017, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been required to report race and ethnicity of participants following an amendment to the Health Revitalization Act,” according to the authors, who suggested that other such initiatives are needed. They advocated “explicit goals to increase recruitment of people of color” as a standard step in clinical trial conduct.

Hypertension trials were cited as an example in which diversity has made a difference.

“Although Black patients are at an elevated risk of developing hypertension, it was not until the enrollment of a substantial proportion of black participants in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) that enough data on Black patients were available to make specific treatment recommendations in this population,” they noted.
 

Impossible to know treatment benefits without ethnoracial data

Penn Medicine

Another investigator who has considered this issue, Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“Lack of diversity among participants in phase 3 clinical trials for psoriasis is a problem,” said Dr. Takeshita, who led a study of racial differences in perceptions of psoriasis therapies that was published last year.

In that study, “my research group not only found differences in perceptions about biologics between Black and White patients with psoriasis, but we have also shown that Black patients with psoriasis are less likely to receive biologic treatment,” she reported. There are many explanations. For example, she found in another study that Black patients are underrepresented in direct-to-consumer advertisements for biologics.

This problem is not unique to psoriasis. Underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnoracial groups is true of other skin diseases and many diseases in general, according to Dr. Takeshita. However, she cautioned that the 3% figure for Black participation in psoriasis trials reported by Mr. Reddy and colleagues is not necessarily reflective of trials in the United States.

“This study included international study sites that are recruiting patients from populations with different demographics than the U.S.,” she noted. By including sites with only Asian patients or countries with few Blacks in the population, it dilutes Black representation. She would expect the exact proportion of Black participants to be somewhat higher even if they are “still likely to be underrepresented” if the analysis has been limited to U.S. data.

The research had no funding source. Three of the nine authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Reddy VD et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep 17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19468.

Non-White patient participation in phase 3 therapeutic trials for plaque psoriasis is less than 15%, according to a recently published analysis of data from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The exact figure drawn from the survey of 82 trials was 14.2%, but 20 (24%) of the trials did not include ethnoracial data at all, and only 65% of those with data had complete data, according to a report in the British Journal of Dermatology by a team of investigators from the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The remaining studies reported the percentage of white participants only or white participants and one additional ethnoracial group,” reported the investigators, led by Vidhatha D. Reddy, a medical student at UCSF.

The investigators broke down participation by race in all phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials that enrolled adults and had posted results by May 2020. Data from trials of medications yet to be approved were excluded.

Most trials were multinational. The medications evaluated included 11 biologics, 10 topicals, 2 oral systemic agents, and a phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor. The 82 trials included in this analysis enrolled 48,846 collectively.

From trials that identified race, 85.8% of 39,161 participants were White, 3.09% of 25,565 patients were Black, 19.55% of 11,364 patients were Hispanic or Latino, and 9.21% of 30,009 patients were Asian. Of trials that included Native Americans or Pacific Islanders, fewer than 2% of participants represented this category.

Non-White patients remain underrepresented even when recognizing differences in the prevalence of psoriasis. For example, one recent survey found the U.S, prevalence of psoriasis to be about half as great in Blacks as it is in Whites (1.9% vs. 3.9%), but the representation of Blacks in the phase 3 trials evaluated by Mr. Reddy and colleagues was more than 20 times lower.

There are many reasons to suspect that lack of diversification in psoriasis trials is impeding optimal care in those underrepresented. Of several examples offered by the authors, one involved differential responses to adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with genetic variants in the BCL2 gene, but the authors reported racially associated genetic differences are not uncommon.

“Estimates have shown that approximately one-fifth of newly developed medications demonstrate interracial/ethnic variability in regard to various factors, such as pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy profiles, dosing, and pharmacogenetics,” Mr. Reddy and his coinvestigators stated.

Although racial diversity in the design and recruitment for clinical trials has not been a priority in trials involving psoriasis, other skin diseases, or most diseases in general, the authors cited some evidence that this is changing.

“Since 2017, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been required to report race and ethnicity of participants following an amendment to the Health Revitalization Act,” according to the authors, who suggested that other such initiatives are needed. They advocated “explicit goals to increase recruitment of people of color” as a standard step in clinical trial conduct.

Hypertension trials were cited as an example in which diversity has made a difference.

“Although Black patients are at an elevated risk of developing hypertension, it was not until the enrollment of a substantial proportion of black participants in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) that enough data on Black patients were available to make specific treatment recommendations in this population,” they noted.
 

Impossible to know treatment benefits without ethnoracial data

Penn Medicine

Another investigator who has considered this issue, Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“Lack of diversity among participants in phase 3 clinical trials for psoriasis is a problem,” said Dr. Takeshita, who led a study of racial differences in perceptions of psoriasis therapies that was published last year.

In that study, “my research group not only found differences in perceptions about biologics between Black and White patients with psoriasis, but we have also shown that Black patients with psoriasis are less likely to receive biologic treatment,” she reported. There are many explanations. For example, she found in another study that Black patients are underrepresented in direct-to-consumer advertisements for biologics.

This problem is not unique to psoriasis. Underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnoracial groups is true of other skin diseases and many diseases in general, according to Dr. Takeshita. However, she cautioned that the 3% figure for Black participation in psoriasis trials reported by Mr. Reddy and colleagues is not necessarily reflective of trials in the United States.

“This study included international study sites that are recruiting patients from populations with different demographics than the U.S.,” she noted. By including sites with only Asian patients or countries with few Blacks in the population, it dilutes Black representation. She would expect the exact proportion of Black participants to be somewhat higher even if they are “still likely to be underrepresented” if the analysis has been limited to U.S. data.

The research had no funding source. Three of the nine authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Reddy VD et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep 17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19468.

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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