Rheumatology News

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) shows evidence of causing gastrointestinal symptoms and has the potential to be transmitted by the fecal-oral route, according to a new report from physicians at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, published online (Gastroenterology. 2020 March 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054).

The virus’s respiratory symptoms are well documented and suggest primary transmission by droplet or contact, while other symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal discomfort are less common and appear to vary between populations. The SARS coronavirus showed up in stool, even sometimes in patients discharged from the hospital. In a study of hospitalized patients in Wuhan, China, 10.1% of coronavirus patients had diarrhea and nausea in the 1-2 days before onset of fever and dyspnea. The first U.S. patient to be diagnosed had a 2-day history of nausea and vomiting, and had a loose bowel movement on the second day in the hospital. Clinicians later confirmed the presence of viral RNA in both the patient’s stool and airway.

The authors say that researchers in China have isolated viral RNA from the stool of two patients (unpublished), and it has been found in saliva, suggesting the possibility of the salivary gland as an infection or transmission route.

The authors maintain that previous studies likely overlooked or neglected patients who had mild intestinal symptoms. “Many efforts should be made to be alert on the initial digestive symptoms of COVID-19 for early detection, early diagnosis, early isolation and early intervention,” the authors wrote.

Like other coronaviruses, it appears that 2019-nCoV infects cells through an interaction between viral transmembrane spike glycoprotein (S-protein) receptor-binding domain, and the cell receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and host cellular transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS). Transcriptome analysis has shown that human lung AT2 cells express ACE-2 and TMPRSS, but esophagus upper and stratified epithelial cells also express both factors, as do stratified epithelial cells and absorptive enterocytes in the ileum and colon.

The researchers call for investigation into ACE-2 fusion proteins and TMPRSS inhibitors for diagnosis, prophylaxis, or treatment of COVID-19.

The authors also noted that COVID-19 has been linked to mild to moderate liver injury as revealed by elevated aminotransferases, hypoproteinemia and prothrombin time prolongation. This also has precedent in that the SARS coronavirus can infect the liver, and biopsies revealed mitoses and apoptosis, along with other abnormalities. SARS-associated hepatitis may be the result of viral hepatitis, immune overreaction, or a secondary effect of antiviral medications or other drugs. Little is known to date about the ability of 2019-nCoV to infect the liver, but single-cell RNA sequencing data from two distinct cohorts showed more ACE-2 expression in cholangiocytes (59.7%) than hepatocytes (2.6%), which indicates that the virus might directly affect intrahepatic bile ducts.

The authors had no sources of funding or financial conflicts.

SOURCE: GU J et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 March 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054.

*This story was updated on 4/10.2020.

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) shows evidence of causing gastrointestinal symptoms and has the potential to be transmitted by the fecal-oral route, according to a new report from physicians at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, published online (Gastroenterology. 2020 March 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054).

The virus’s respiratory symptoms are well documented and suggest primary transmission by droplet or contact, while other symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal discomfort are less common and appear to vary between populations. The SARS coronavirus showed up in stool, even sometimes in patients discharged from the hospital. In a study of hospitalized patients in Wuhan, China, 10.1% of coronavirus patients had diarrhea and nausea in the 1-2 days before onset of fever and dyspnea. The first U.S. patient to be diagnosed had a 2-day history of nausea and vomiting, and had a loose bowel movement on the second day in the hospital. Clinicians later confirmed the presence of viral RNA in both the patient’s stool and airway.

The authors say that researchers in China have isolated viral RNA from the stool of two patients (unpublished), and it has been found in saliva, suggesting the possibility of the salivary gland as an infection or transmission route.

The authors maintain that previous studies likely overlooked or neglected patients who had mild intestinal symptoms. “Many efforts should be made to be alert on the initial digestive symptoms of COVID-19 for early detection, early diagnosis, early isolation and early intervention,” the authors wrote.

Like other coronaviruses, it appears that 2019-nCoV infects cells through an interaction between viral transmembrane spike glycoprotein (S-protein) receptor-binding domain, and the cell receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and host cellular transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS). Transcriptome analysis has shown that human lung AT2 cells express ACE-2 and TMPRSS, but esophagus upper and stratified epithelial cells also express both factors, as do stratified epithelial cells and absorptive enterocytes in the ileum and colon.

The researchers call for investigation into ACE-2 fusion proteins and TMPRSS inhibitors for diagnosis, prophylaxis, or treatment of COVID-19.

The authors also noted that COVID-19 has been linked to mild to moderate liver injury as revealed by elevated aminotransferases, hypoproteinemia and prothrombin time prolongation. This also has precedent in that the SARS coronavirus can infect the liver, and biopsies revealed mitoses and apoptosis, along with other abnormalities. SARS-associated hepatitis may be the result of viral hepatitis, immune overreaction, or a secondary effect of antiviral medications or other drugs. Little is known to date about the ability of 2019-nCoV to infect the liver, but single-cell RNA sequencing data from two distinct cohorts showed more ACE-2 expression in cholangiocytes (59.7%) than hepatocytes (2.6%), which indicates that the virus might directly affect intrahepatic bile ducts.

The authors had no sources of funding or financial conflicts.

SOURCE: GU J et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 March 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054.

*This story was updated on 4/10.2020.

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) shows evidence of causing gastrointestinal symptoms and has the potential to be transmitted by the fecal-oral route, according to a new report from physicians at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, published online (Gastroenterology. 2020 March 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054).

The virus’s respiratory symptoms are well documented and suggest primary transmission by droplet or contact, while other symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal discomfort are less common and appear to vary between populations. The SARS coronavirus showed up in stool, even sometimes in patients discharged from the hospital. In a study of hospitalized patients in Wuhan, China, 10.1% of coronavirus patients had diarrhea and nausea in the 1-2 days before onset of fever and dyspnea. The first U.S. patient to be diagnosed had a 2-day history of nausea and vomiting, and had a loose bowel movement on the second day in the hospital. Clinicians later confirmed the presence of viral RNA in both the patient’s stool and airway.

The authors say that researchers in China have isolated viral RNA from the stool of two patients (unpublished), and it has been found in saliva, suggesting the possibility of the salivary gland as an infection or transmission route.

The authors maintain that previous studies likely overlooked or neglected patients who had mild intestinal symptoms. “Many efforts should be made to be alert on the initial digestive symptoms of COVID-19 for early detection, early diagnosis, early isolation and early intervention,” the authors wrote.

Like other coronaviruses, it appears that 2019-nCoV infects cells through an interaction between viral transmembrane spike glycoprotein (S-protein) receptor-binding domain, and the cell receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and host cellular transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS). Transcriptome analysis has shown that human lung AT2 cells express ACE-2 and TMPRSS, but esophagus upper and stratified epithelial cells also express both factors, as do stratified epithelial cells and absorptive enterocytes in the ileum and colon.

The researchers call for investigation into ACE-2 fusion proteins and TMPRSS inhibitors for diagnosis, prophylaxis, or treatment of COVID-19.

The authors also noted that COVID-19 has been linked to mild to moderate liver injury as revealed by elevated aminotransferases, hypoproteinemia and prothrombin time prolongation. This also has precedent in that the SARS coronavirus can infect the liver, and biopsies revealed mitoses and apoptosis, along with other abnormalities. SARS-associated hepatitis may be the result of viral hepatitis, immune overreaction, or a secondary effect of antiviral medications or other drugs. Little is known to date about the ability of 2019-nCoV to infect the liver, but single-cell RNA sequencing data from two distinct cohorts showed more ACE-2 expression in cholangiocytes (59.7%) than hepatocytes (2.6%), which indicates that the virus might directly affect intrahepatic bile ducts.

The authors had no sources of funding or financial conflicts.

SOURCE: GU J et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 March 3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.054.

*This story was updated on 4/10.2020.

Patients with lupus who have sustained high blood pressure may be at significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, compared with those patients whose blood pressure is in the range now considered to be normal, results of a retrospective, single-center investigation suggest.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Risk of atherosclerotic vascular events was increased by 73% for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who sustained a mean blood pressure of 130/80 to 139/89 mm Hg over 2 years in the study, which included 1,532 patients treated at a clinic in Toronto.

Management of hypertension in SLE patients should start early, and should aim to achieve levels below 130/80 mm Hg, according to the investigators, led by Konstantinos Tselios, MD, PhD, of the Centre for Prognosis Studies in the Rheumatic Diseases at the University of Toronto.

“The findings of the present study support that the target BP should be less than 130/80 mm Hg in all patients with lupus in order to minimize their cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Tselios and coauthors said in their study, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Despite the limitations inherent in a retrospective, observational study, this work by Dr. Tselios and colleagues may help inform the care of patients with SLE, according to C. Michael Stein, MBChB, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

“It’s really interesting data that’s important and helps us think in terms of figuring out what may be reasonable to do for a particular patient,” Dr. Stein said in an interview.

Starting antihypertensive management early and aiming at levels below 130/80 mm Hg is a strategy that should be “reasonable” for most patients with SLE, said Dr. Stein, adding that the approach specified in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) hypertension guidelines are appropriate to follow. In those guidelines, the threshold for diagnosis of hypertension was lowered to 130/80 mm Hg.

“You can start with risk factor modification, in terms of losing weight, exercising, stopping alcohol, and decreasing salt in the diet to see if you can get the blood pressure down, though it may come down to drug therapy for many patients, I believe,” Dr. Stein said.

Authors of those 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines made no recommendations for patients with SLE or other connective tissue diseases, despite including a section devoted to specific patient subgroups and comorbidities of interest, Dr. Tselios and coauthors noted in their report.

Management of hypertension in patients with lupus may be “delayed” in patients with blood pressures reaching the current hypertension threshold, according to Dr. Tselios and colleagues, due in part to difficulties in cardiovascular risk calculation in SLE patients, as well as current risk considerations outlined in the guidelines.

“On the basis of the recent guidelines, the patient with typical lupus (young female with no traditional atherosclerotic risk factors) would be considered as a low-risk individual and not offered treatment for a BP of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg,” they said in their report.

Accordingly, Dr. Tselios and colleagues sought to determine whether the new hypertension definition predicted atherosclerotic vascular events, including new-onset angina, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, revascularization procedures, heart failure, or peripheral vascular disease requiring angioplasty, in patients with SLE treated at a Canadian clinic.

Their analysis comprised 1,532 patients with SLE who had at least 2 years of follow-up and had no prior atherosclerotic events on record. Over a mean follow-up of nearly 11 years, there were 124 such events documented in those patients.

With a mean follow-up of nearly 11 years, the incidence of atherosclerotic events was 18.9 per 1,000 patient-years for patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg, 11.5 per 1,000 patient-years for the 130-139/80-89 mm Hg group, and 4.5 per 1,000 patient-years for those with blood pressures of 130/80 mm Hg or lower, with differences that were statistically significant between groups, according to the report.

An adjusted blood pressure of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg over the first 2 years since enrollment in the clinic was independently associated with the occurrence of an atherosclerotic event, with a hazard ratio of 1.73 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.69, P = 0.011), according to results of a multivariable analysis.

Those findings support targeting a blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in all patients with lupus, according to Dr. Tselios and coauthors.

“It seems reasonable that clinicians should not rely on CV risk calculators in SLE and commence treatment as soon as possible in cases of sustained BP elevation above the threshold of 130/80 mm Hg,” they wrote in their report.

How low to go remains unclear, however, as targeting lower levels of blood pressure might be unsafe in certain groups, such as those SLE patients with prior heart disease or heart failure; nevertheless, recent observational data from non-SLE populations suggest that effective treatment to levels lower than 130/80 mm Hg would “further reduce the incidence of atherosclerotic events in SLE,” the authors said in a discussion of their results.

Dr. Tselios and coauthors said they had no competing interests relative to the study. They reported funding for the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic from the University Health Network, Lou & Marissa Rocca, Mark & Diana Bozzo, and the Lupus Foundation of Ontario.

SOURCE: Tselios K et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216764

Patients with lupus who have sustained high blood pressure may be at significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, compared with those patients whose blood pressure is in the range now considered to be normal, results of a retrospective, single-center investigation suggest.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Risk of atherosclerotic vascular events was increased by 73% for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who sustained a mean blood pressure of 130/80 to 139/89 mm Hg over 2 years in the study, which included 1,532 patients treated at a clinic in Toronto.

Management of hypertension in SLE patients should start early, and should aim to achieve levels below 130/80 mm Hg, according to the investigators, led by Konstantinos Tselios, MD, PhD, of the Centre for Prognosis Studies in the Rheumatic Diseases at the University of Toronto.

“The findings of the present study support that the target BP should be less than 130/80 mm Hg in all patients with lupus in order to minimize their cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Tselios and coauthors said in their study, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Despite the limitations inherent in a retrospective, observational study, this work by Dr. Tselios and colleagues may help inform the care of patients with SLE, according to C. Michael Stein, MBChB, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

“It’s really interesting data that’s important and helps us think in terms of figuring out what may be reasonable to do for a particular patient,” Dr. Stein said in an interview.

Starting antihypertensive management early and aiming at levels below 130/80 mm Hg is a strategy that should be “reasonable” for most patients with SLE, said Dr. Stein, adding that the approach specified in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) hypertension guidelines are appropriate to follow. In those guidelines, the threshold for diagnosis of hypertension was lowered to 130/80 mm Hg.

“You can start with risk factor modification, in terms of losing weight, exercising, stopping alcohol, and decreasing salt in the diet to see if you can get the blood pressure down, though it may come down to drug therapy for many patients, I believe,” Dr. Stein said.

Authors of those 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines made no recommendations for patients with SLE or other connective tissue diseases, despite including a section devoted to specific patient subgroups and comorbidities of interest, Dr. Tselios and coauthors noted in their report.

Management of hypertension in patients with lupus may be “delayed” in patients with blood pressures reaching the current hypertension threshold, according to Dr. Tselios and colleagues, due in part to difficulties in cardiovascular risk calculation in SLE patients, as well as current risk considerations outlined in the guidelines.

“On the basis of the recent guidelines, the patient with typical lupus (young female with no traditional atherosclerotic risk factors) would be considered as a low-risk individual and not offered treatment for a BP of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg,” they said in their report.

Accordingly, Dr. Tselios and colleagues sought to determine whether the new hypertension definition predicted atherosclerotic vascular events, including new-onset angina, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, revascularization procedures, heart failure, or peripheral vascular disease requiring angioplasty, in patients with SLE treated at a Canadian clinic.

Their analysis comprised 1,532 patients with SLE who had at least 2 years of follow-up and had no prior atherosclerotic events on record. Over a mean follow-up of nearly 11 years, there were 124 such events documented in those patients.

With a mean follow-up of nearly 11 years, the incidence of atherosclerotic events was 18.9 per 1,000 patient-years for patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg, 11.5 per 1,000 patient-years for the 130-139/80-89 mm Hg group, and 4.5 per 1,000 patient-years for those with blood pressures of 130/80 mm Hg or lower, with differences that were statistically significant between groups, according to the report.

An adjusted blood pressure of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg over the first 2 years since enrollment in the clinic was independently associated with the occurrence of an atherosclerotic event, with a hazard ratio of 1.73 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.69, P = 0.011), according to results of a multivariable analysis.

Those findings support targeting a blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in all patients with lupus, according to Dr. Tselios and coauthors.

“It seems reasonable that clinicians should not rely on CV risk calculators in SLE and commence treatment as soon as possible in cases of sustained BP elevation above the threshold of 130/80 mm Hg,” they wrote in their report.

How low to go remains unclear, however, as targeting lower levels of blood pressure might be unsafe in certain groups, such as those SLE patients with prior heart disease or heart failure; nevertheless, recent observational data from non-SLE populations suggest that effective treatment to levels lower than 130/80 mm Hg would “further reduce the incidence of atherosclerotic events in SLE,” the authors said in a discussion of their results.

Dr. Tselios and coauthors said they had no competing interests relative to the study. They reported funding for the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic from the University Health Network, Lou & Marissa Rocca, Mark & Diana Bozzo, and the Lupus Foundation of Ontario.

SOURCE: Tselios K et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216764

Patients with lupus who have sustained high blood pressure may be at significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, compared with those patients whose blood pressure is in the range now considered to be normal, results of a retrospective, single-center investigation suggest.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Risk of atherosclerotic vascular events was increased by 73% for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who sustained a mean blood pressure of 130/80 to 139/89 mm Hg over 2 years in the study, which included 1,532 patients treated at a clinic in Toronto.

Management of hypertension in SLE patients should start early, and should aim to achieve levels below 130/80 mm Hg, according to the investigators, led by Konstantinos Tselios, MD, PhD, of the Centre for Prognosis Studies in the Rheumatic Diseases at the University of Toronto.

“The findings of the present study support that the target BP should be less than 130/80 mm Hg in all patients with lupus in order to minimize their cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Tselios and coauthors said in their study, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Despite the limitations inherent in a retrospective, observational study, this work by Dr. Tselios and colleagues may help inform the care of patients with SLE, according to C. Michael Stein, MBChB, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

“It’s really interesting data that’s important and helps us think in terms of figuring out what may be reasonable to do for a particular patient,” Dr. Stein said in an interview.

Starting antihypertensive management early and aiming at levels below 130/80 mm Hg is a strategy that should be “reasonable” for most patients with SLE, said Dr. Stein, adding that the approach specified in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) hypertension guidelines are appropriate to follow. In those guidelines, the threshold for diagnosis of hypertension was lowered to 130/80 mm Hg.

“You can start with risk factor modification, in terms of losing weight, exercising, stopping alcohol, and decreasing salt in the diet to see if you can get the blood pressure down, though it may come down to drug therapy for many patients, I believe,” Dr. Stein said.

Authors of those 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines made no recommendations for patients with SLE or other connective tissue diseases, despite including a section devoted to specific patient subgroups and comorbidities of interest, Dr. Tselios and coauthors noted in their report.

Management of hypertension in patients with lupus may be “delayed” in patients with blood pressures reaching the current hypertension threshold, according to Dr. Tselios and colleagues, due in part to difficulties in cardiovascular risk calculation in SLE patients, as well as current risk considerations outlined in the guidelines.

“On the basis of the recent guidelines, the patient with typical lupus (young female with no traditional atherosclerotic risk factors) would be considered as a low-risk individual and not offered treatment for a BP of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg,” they said in their report.

Accordingly, Dr. Tselios and colleagues sought to determine whether the new hypertension definition predicted atherosclerotic vascular events, including new-onset angina, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, revascularization procedures, heart failure, or peripheral vascular disease requiring angioplasty, in patients with SLE treated at a Canadian clinic.

Their analysis comprised 1,532 patients with SLE who had at least 2 years of follow-up and had no prior atherosclerotic events on record. Over a mean follow-up of nearly 11 years, there were 124 such events documented in those patients.

With a mean follow-up of nearly 11 years, the incidence of atherosclerotic events was 18.9 per 1,000 patient-years for patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg, 11.5 per 1,000 patient-years for the 130-139/80-89 mm Hg group, and 4.5 per 1,000 patient-years for those with blood pressures of 130/80 mm Hg or lower, with differences that were statistically significant between groups, according to the report.

An adjusted blood pressure of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg over the first 2 years since enrollment in the clinic was independently associated with the occurrence of an atherosclerotic event, with a hazard ratio of 1.73 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.69, P = 0.011), according to results of a multivariable analysis.

Those findings support targeting a blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in all patients with lupus, according to Dr. Tselios and coauthors.

“It seems reasonable that clinicians should not rely on CV risk calculators in SLE and commence treatment as soon as possible in cases of sustained BP elevation above the threshold of 130/80 mm Hg,” they wrote in their report.

How low to go remains unclear, however, as targeting lower levels of blood pressure might be unsafe in certain groups, such as those SLE patients with prior heart disease or heart failure; nevertheless, recent observational data from non-SLE populations suggest that effective treatment to levels lower than 130/80 mm Hg would “further reduce the incidence of atherosclerotic events in SLE,” the authors said in a discussion of their results.

Dr. Tselios and coauthors said they had no competing interests relative to the study. They reported funding for the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic from the University Health Network, Lou & Marissa Rocca, Mark & Diana Bozzo, and the Lupus Foundation of Ontario.

SOURCE: Tselios K et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216764

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

With new developments daily and lingering uncertainty about COVID-19, questions about testing and treatment for the coronavirus are at the forefront.

To address these top questions, Jay C. Butler, MD, deputy director for infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sat down with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, MD, to discuss the latest data on COVID-19 and to outline updated guidance from the agency. The following question-and-answer session was part of a live stream interview hosted by JAMA on March 16, 2020. The questions have been edited for length and clarity.
 

What test is being used to identify COVID-19?

In the United States, the most common and widely available test is the RT-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), which over the past few weeks has become available at public health labs across the country, Dr. Butler said during the JAMA interview. Capacity for the test is now possible in all 50 states and in Washington, D.C.

“More recently, there’s been a number of commercial labs that have come online to be able to do the testing,” Dr. Butler said. “Additionally, a number of academic centers are now able to run [Food and Drug Administration]–approved testing using slightly different PCR platforms.”
 

How accurate is the test?

Dr. Butler called PCR the “gold standard,” for testing COVID-19, and said it’s safe to say the test’s likelihood of identifying infection or past infection is extremely high. However, data on test sensitivity is limited.

“This may be frustrating to those of us who really like to know specifics of how to interpret the test results, but it’s important to keep in mind, we’re talking about a virus that we didn’t know existed 3 months ago,” he said.
 

At what point does a person with coronavirus test positive?

When exactly a test becomes positive is an unknown, Dr. Butler said. The assumption is that a patient who tests positive is more likely to be infectious, and data suggest the level of infectiousness is greatest after the onset of symptoms.

“There is at least some anecdotal reports that suggest that transmission could occur before onset of symptoms, but the data is still very limited,” he said. “Of course that has big implications in terms of how well we can really slow the spread of the virus.”
 

Who should get tested?

Dr. Butler said the focus should be individuals who are symptomatic with evidence of respiratory tract infection. People who are concerned about the virus and want a test are not the target.

“It’s important when talking to patients to help them to understand, this is different than a test for HIV or hepatitis C, where much of the message is: ‘Please get tested.’ ” he said. “This a situation where we’re trying to diagnose an acute infection. We do have a resource that may become limited again as some of the equipment required for running the test or collecting the specimen may come into short supply, so we want to focus on those people who are symptomatic and particularly on people who may be at higher risk of more severe illness.”
 

If a previously infected patient tests negative, can they still shed virus?

The CDC is currently analyzing how a negative PCR test relates to viral load, according to Dr. Butler. He added there have been situations in which a patient has twice tested negative for the virus, but a third swab resulted in a weakly positive result.

“It’s not clear if those are people who are actually infectious,” he said. “The PCR is detecting viral RNA, it doesn’t necessarily indicate there is viable virus present in the respiratory tract. So in general, I think it is safe to go back to work, but a positive test in a situation like that can be very difficult to interpret because we think it probably doesn’t reflect infectivity, but we don’t know for sure.”
 

Do we have an adequate supply of tests in the United States?

The CDC has addressed supply concerns by broadening the number of PCR platforms that can be used to run COVID-19 analyses, Dr. Butler said. Expansion of these platforms has been one way the government is furthering testing options and enabling consumer labs and academic centers to contribute to testing.

When can people who test positive go back to work?

The CDC is still researching that question and reviewing the data, Dr. Butler said. The current recommendation is that a patient who tests positive is considered clear to return to work after two negative tests at least 24 hours apart, following the resolution of symptoms. The CDC has not yet made an official recommendation on an exact time frame, but the CDC is considering a 14-day minimum of quarantine.

“The one caveat I’ll add is that someone who is a health care worker, even if they have resolved symptoms, it’s still a good idea to wear a surgical mask [when they return to work], just as an extra precaution.”
 

What do we know about immunity? Can patients get reinfected?

Long-term immunity after exposure and infection is virtually unknown, Dr. Butler said. Investigators know those with COVID-19 have an antibody response, but whether that is protective or not, is unclear. In regard to older coronaviruses, such as those that cause colds, patients generally develop an antibody response and may have a period of immunity, but that immunity eventually wanes and reinfection can occur.

What is the latest on therapies?

A number of trials are underway in China and in the United States to test possible therapies for COVID-19, Dr. Butler said. One of the candidate drugs is the broad spectrum antiviral drug remdesivir, which was developed for the treatment of the Ebola virus. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health is studying the potential for monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19.

“Of course these are drugs not yet FDA approved,” he said. “We all want to have them in our toolbox as soon as possible, but we want to make sure these drugs are going to benefit and not harm, and that they really do have the utility that we hope for.”
 

Is there specific guidance for healthcare workers about COVID-19?

Health care workers have a much higher likelihood of being exposed or exposing others who are at high risk of severe infection, Dr. Butler said. That’s why, if a health care worker becomes infected and recovers, it’s still important to take extra precautions when going back to work, such as wearing a mask.

“These are recommendations that are in-draft,” he said. “I want to be clear, I’m floating concepts out there that people can consider. ... I recognize as a former infection control medical director at a hospital that sometimes you have to adapt those guidelines based on your local conditions.”

[email protected]

With new developments daily and lingering uncertainty about COVID-19, questions about testing and treatment for the coronavirus are at the forefront.

To address these top questions, Jay C. Butler, MD, deputy director for infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sat down with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, MD, to discuss the latest data on COVID-19 and to outline updated guidance from the agency. The following question-and-answer session was part of a live stream interview hosted by JAMA on March 16, 2020. The questions have been edited for length and clarity.
 

What test is being used to identify COVID-19?

In the United States, the most common and widely available test is the RT-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), which over the past few weeks has become available at public health labs across the country, Dr. Butler said during the JAMA interview. Capacity for the test is now possible in all 50 states and in Washington, D.C.

“More recently, there’s been a number of commercial labs that have come online to be able to do the testing,” Dr. Butler said. “Additionally, a number of academic centers are now able to run [Food and Drug Administration]–approved testing using slightly different PCR platforms.”
 

How accurate is the test?

Dr. Butler called PCR the “gold standard,” for testing COVID-19, and said it’s safe to say the test’s likelihood of identifying infection or past infection is extremely high. However, data on test sensitivity is limited.

“This may be frustrating to those of us who really like to know specifics of how to interpret the test results, but it’s important to keep in mind, we’re talking about a virus that we didn’t know existed 3 months ago,” he said.
 

At what point does a person with coronavirus test positive?

When exactly a test becomes positive is an unknown, Dr. Butler said. The assumption is that a patient who tests positive is more likely to be infectious, and data suggest the level of infectiousness is greatest after the onset of symptoms.

“There is at least some anecdotal reports that suggest that transmission could occur before onset of symptoms, but the data is still very limited,” he said. “Of course that has big implications in terms of how well we can really slow the spread of the virus.”
 

Who should get tested?

Dr. Butler said the focus should be individuals who are symptomatic with evidence of respiratory tract infection. People who are concerned about the virus and want a test are not the target.

“It’s important when talking to patients to help them to understand, this is different than a test for HIV or hepatitis C, where much of the message is: ‘Please get tested.’ ” he said. “This a situation where we’re trying to diagnose an acute infection. We do have a resource that may become limited again as some of the equipment required for running the test or collecting the specimen may come into short supply, so we want to focus on those people who are symptomatic and particularly on people who may be at higher risk of more severe illness.”
 

If a previously infected patient tests negative, can they still shed virus?

The CDC is currently analyzing how a negative PCR test relates to viral load, according to Dr. Butler. He added there have been situations in which a patient has twice tested negative for the virus, but a third swab resulted in a weakly positive result.

“It’s not clear if those are people who are actually infectious,” he said. “The PCR is detecting viral RNA, it doesn’t necessarily indicate there is viable virus present in the respiratory tract. So in general, I think it is safe to go back to work, but a positive test in a situation like that can be very difficult to interpret because we think it probably doesn’t reflect infectivity, but we don’t know for sure.”
 

Do we have an adequate supply of tests in the United States?

The CDC has addressed supply concerns by broadening the number of PCR platforms that can be used to run COVID-19 analyses, Dr. Butler said. Expansion of these platforms has been one way the government is furthering testing options and enabling consumer labs and academic centers to contribute to testing.

When can people who test positive go back to work?

The CDC is still researching that question and reviewing the data, Dr. Butler said. The current recommendation is that a patient who tests positive is considered clear to return to work after two negative tests at least 24 hours apart, following the resolution of symptoms. The CDC has not yet made an official recommendation on an exact time frame, but the CDC is considering a 14-day minimum of quarantine.

“The one caveat I’ll add is that someone who is a health care worker, even if they have resolved symptoms, it’s still a good idea to wear a surgical mask [when they return to work], just as an extra precaution.”
 

What do we know about immunity? Can patients get reinfected?

Long-term immunity after exposure and infection is virtually unknown, Dr. Butler said. Investigators know those with COVID-19 have an antibody response, but whether that is protective or not, is unclear. In regard to older coronaviruses, such as those that cause colds, patients generally develop an antibody response and may have a period of immunity, but that immunity eventually wanes and reinfection can occur.

What is the latest on therapies?

A number of trials are underway in China and in the United States to test possible therapies for COVID-19, Dr. Butler said. One of the candidate drugs is the broad spectrum antiviral drug remdesivir, which was developed for the treatment of the Ebola virus. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health is studying the potential for monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19.

“Of course these are drugs not yet FDA approved,” he said. “We all want to have them in our toolbox as soon as possible, but we want to make sure these drugs are going to benefit and not harm, and that they really do have the utility that we hope for.”
 

Is there specific guidance for healthcare workers about COVID-19?

Health care workers have a much higher likelihood of being exposed or exposing others who are at high risk of severe infection, Dr. Butler said. That’s why, if a health care worker becomes infected and recovers, it’s still important to take extra precautions when going back to work, such as wearing a mask.

“These are recommendations that are in-draft,” he said. “I want to be clear, I’m floating concepts out there that people can consider. ... I recognize as a former infection control medical director at a hospital that sometimes you have to adapt those guidelines based on your local conditions.”

[email protected]

With new developments daily and lingering uncertainty about COVID-19, questions about testing and treatment for the coronavirus are at the forefront.

To address these top questions, Jay C. Butler, MD, deputy director for infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sat down with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, MD, to discuss the latest data on COVID-19 and to outline updated guidance from the agency. The following question-and-answer session was part of a live stream interview hosted by JAMA on March 16, 2020. The questions have been edited for length and clarity.
 

What test is being used to identify COVID-19?

In the United States, the most common and widely available test is the RT-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), which over the past few weeks has become available at public health labs across the country, Dr. Butler said during the JAMA interview. Capacity for the test is now possible in all 50 states and in Washington, D.C.

“More recently, there’s been a number of commercial labs that have come online to be able to do the testing,” Dr. Butler said. “Additionally, a number of academic centers are now able to run [Food and Drug Administration]–approved testing using slightly different PCR platforms.”
 

How accurate is the test?

Dr. Butler called PCR the “gold standard,” for testing COVID-19, and said it’s safe to say the test’s likelihood of identifying infection or past infection is extremely high. However, data on test sensitivity is limited.

“This may be frustrating to those of us who really like to know specifics of how to interpret the test results, but it’s important to keep in mind, we’re talking about a virus that we didn’t know existed 3 months ago,” he said.
 

At what point does a person with coronavirus test positive?

When exactly a test becomes positive is an unknown, Dr. Butler said. The assumption is that a patient who tests positive is more likely to be infectious, and data suggest the level of infectiousness is greatest after the onset of symptoms.

“There is at least some anecdotal reports that suggest that transmission could occur before onset of symptoms, but the data is still very limited,” he said. “Of course that has big implications in terms of how well we can really slow the spread of the virus.”
 

Who should get tested?

Dr. Butler said the focus should be individuals who are symptomatic with evidence of respiratory tract infection. People who are concerned about the virus and want a test are not the target.

“It’s important when talking to patients to help them to understand, this is different than a test for HIV or hepatitis C, where much of the message is: ‘Please get tested.’ ” he said. “This a situation where we’re trying to diagnose an acute infection. We do have a resource that may become limited again as some of the equipment required for running the test or collecting the specimen may come into short supply, so we want to focus on those people who are symptomatic and particularly on people who may be at higher risk of more severe illness.”
 

If a previously infected patient tests negative, can they still shed virus?

The CDC is currently analyzing how a negative PCR test relates to viral load, according to Dr. Butler. He added there have been situations in which a patient has twice tested negative for the virus, but a third swab resulted in a weakly positive result.

“It’s not clear if those are people who are actually infectious,” he said. “The PCR is detecting viral RNA, it doesn’t necessarily indicate there is viable virus present in the respiratory tract. So in general, I think it is safe to go back to work, but a positive test in a situation like that can be very difficult to interpret because we think it probably doesn’t reflect infectivity, but we don’t know for sure.”
 

Do we have an adequate supply of tests in the United States?

The CDC has addressed supply concerns by broadening the number of PCR platforms that can be used to run COVID-19 analyses, Dr. Butler said. Expansion of these platforms has been one way the government is furthering testing options and enabling consumer labs and academic centers to contribute to testing.

When can people who test positive go back to work?

The CDC is still researching that question and reviewing the data, Dr. Butler said. The current recommendation is that a patient who tests positive is considered clear to return to work after two negative tests at least 24 hours apart, following the resolution of symptoms. The CDC has not yet made an official recommendation on an exact time frame, but the CDC is considering a 14-day minimum of quarantine.

“The one caveat I’ll add is that someone who is a health care worker, even if they have resolved symptoms, it’s still a good idea to wear a surgical mask [when they return to work], just as an extra precaution.”
 

What do we know about immunity? Can patients get reinfected?

Long-term immunity after exposure and infection is virtually unknown, Dr. Butler said. Investigators know those with COVID-19 have an antibody response, but whether that is protective or not, is unclear. In regard to older coronaviruses, such as those that cause colds, patients generally develop an antibody response and may have a period of immunity, but that immunity eventually wanes and reinfection can occur.

What is the latest on therapies?

A number of trials are underway in China and in the United States to test possible therapies for COVID-19, Dr. Butler said. One of the candidate drugs is the broad spectrum antiviral drug remdesivir, which was developed for the treatment of the Ebola virus. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health is studying the potential for monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19.

“Of course these are drugs not yet FDA approved,” he said. “We all want to have them in our toolbox as soon as possible, but we want to make sure these drugs are going to benefit and not harm, and that they really do have the utility that we hope for.”
 

Is there specific guidance for healthcare workers about COVID-19?

Health care workers have a much higher likelihood of being exposed or exposing others who are at high risk of severe infection, Dr. Butler said. That’s why, if a health care worker becomes infected and recovers, it’s still important to take extra precautions when going back to work, such as wearing a mask.

“These are recommendations that are in-draft,” he said. “I want to be clear, I’m floating concepts out there that people can consider. ... I recognize as a former infection control medical director at a hospital that sometimes you have to adapt those guidelines based on your local conditions.”

[email protected]

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis have a significantly lower likelihood of achieving improvement in disease activity or remission when their dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy is reduced, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six trials that included 747 adults.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) “have shown significant sustained clinical improvement in axSpA and are introduced in patients with axial disease or as the next line of treatment after inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” but this improvement comes with a degree of immunosuppression that can increase infection risk, wrote Daeria O. Lawson of Toronto Western Hospital and colleagues. However, the impact of reducing or discontinuing TNFi therapy, compared with standard dosing, has not been well examined, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified six randomized, controlled trials with a total of 747 adults. Overall, patients on a reduced dose had a lower likelihood of achieving 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria (ASAS40) or ASAS partial remission, compared with those on a standard TNFi dose (risk ratios, 0.62 and 0.17, respectively).

In addition, the mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 0.35 for patients on reduced TNFi therapy, and no differences were seen in C-reactive protein levels, infection rates, or injection/infusion reactions in patients on a reduced dose, compared with those on the standard dose.

Patients on the reduced TNFi dose also had more disease flares and/or relapses, compared with the standard group (risk ratio, 1.73).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to compare subgroups based on dosing regimens, potential blinding and selection bias, and inadequate data to assess certain patient outcomes, including maintenance of disease remission and quality of life, the researchers noted. The results confirm findings from previous studies and support the benefit of standard dosing for maintaining stable disease, they said.

However, more research is needed to identify patients who may be more responsive to TNFi reduction, they wrote. “Although treatment recommendations for the best dose reduction strategies cannot be made at this time given the heterogeneity in tapering strategies reported in the literature, this decision should be an individualized one between the patient and their physician,” the researchers emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Lawson is supported in part by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network Student Training Program.

SOURCE: Lawson DO et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24184.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis have a significantly lower likelihood of achieving improvement in disease activity or remission when their dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy is reduced, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six trials that included 747 adults.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) “have shown significant sustained clinical improvement in axSpA and are introduced in patients with axial disease or as the next line of treatment after inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” but this improvement comes with a degree of immunosuppression that can increase infection risk, wrote Daeria O. Lawson of Toronto Western Hospital and colleagues. However, the impact of reducing or discontinuing TNFi therapy, compared with standard dosing, has not been well examined, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified six randomized, controlled trials with a total of 747 adults. Overall, patients on a reduced dose had a lower likelihood of achieving 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria (ASAS40) or ASAS partial remission, compared with those on a standard TNFi dose (risk ratios, 0.62 and 0.17, respectively).

In addition, the mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 0.35 for patients on reduced TNFi therapy, and no differences were seen in C-reactive protein levels, infection rates, or injection/infusion reactions in patients on a reduced dose, compared with those on the standard dose.

Patients on the reduced TNFi dose also had more disease flares and/or relapses, compared with the standard group (risk ratio, 1.73).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to compare subgroups based on dosing regimens, potential blinding and selection bias, and inadequate data to assess certain patient outcomes, including maintenance of disease remission and quality of life, the researchers noted. The results confirm findings from previous studies and support the benefit of standard dosing for maintaining stable disease, they said.

However, more research is needed to identify patients who may be more responsive to TNFi reduction, they wrote. “Although treatment recommendations for the best dose reduction strategies cannot be made at this time given the heterogeneity in tapering strategies reported in the literature, this decision should be an individualized one between the patient and their physician,” the researchers emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Lawson is supported in part by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network Student Training Program.

SOURCE: Lawson DO et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24184.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis have a significantly lower likelihood of achieving improvement in disease activity or remission when their dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy is reduced, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six trials that included 747 adults.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) “have shown significant sustained clinical improvement in axSpA and are introduced in patients with axial disease or as the next line of treatment after inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” but this improvement comes with a degree of immunosuppression that can increase infection risk, wrote Daeria O. Lawson of Toronto Western Hospital and colleagues. However, the impact of reducing or discontinuing TNFi therapy, compared with standard dosing, has not been well examined, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified six randomized, controlled trials with a total of 747 adults. Overall, patients on a reduced dose had a lower likelihood of achieving 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria (ASAS40) or ASAS partial remission, compared with those on a standard TNFi dose (risk ratios, 0.62 and 0.17, respectively).

In addition, the mean increase in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 0.35 for patients on reduced TNFi therapy, and no differences were seen in C-reactive protein levels, infection rates, or injection/infusion reactions in patients on a reduced dose, compared with those on the standard dose.

Patients on the reduced TNFi dose also had more disease flares and/or relapses, compared with the standard group (risk ratio, 1.73).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to compare subgroups based on dosing regimens, potential blinding and selection bias, and inadequate data to assess certain patient outcomes, including maintenance of disease remission and quality of life, the researchers noted. The results confirm findings from previous studies and support the benefit of standard dosing for maintaining stable disease, they said.

However, more research is needed to identify patients who may be more responsive to TNFi reduction, they wrote. “Although treatment recommendations for the best dose reduction strategies cannot be made at this time given the heterogeneity in tapering strategies reported in the literature, this decision should be an individualized one between the patient and their physician,” the researchers emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Lawson is supported in part by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network Student Training Program.

SOURCE: Lawson DO et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24184.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

[email protected]

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

[email protected]

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

[email protected]

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Recently, a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that taking statins and blood pressure medications doesn’t lead to healthier lifestyles.

copyright Jeffrey Hamilton/Thinkstock

This should surprise no one practicing medicine today. With absolutely no scientific data to back up the next statement, I’m willing to bet a study on oral antiglycemics for type 2 diabetes would yield similar results.

The problem here is that these drugs don’t change human nature, and I’m not belittling their ability to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Developed nations nowadays live in a world of plenty. For most of us, there’s not only no shortage of food options, but the majority of what’s out there is the worst stuff for your health. Salty, dense calories, high-fat, sweetened – for most of us that’s a normal day of eating. It tastes good. Two million years of evolution have programmed us to eat similar stuff because in the wild it sustains survival.

In the city and suburbs, however, that’s not the case.

Food manufacturers make it and stores sell it because, quite bluntly, it makes money. The profit margin for unhealthy stuff is higher than that for fruits and vegetables. If you’re trying to run a successful business, which one would you choose to sell?

As long as people are going to eat unhealthy stuff, others will sell it to them. All the medical breakthroughs in the world won’t change that.

Same with exercise. Some people love to exercise. Some people catch the bug to do it consistently. But most try for a few weeks, usually in January-February, then give up because they don’t have time, or the will, or both.

Medical breakthroughs won’t fix that, either.

There’s also, I suspect, a component of misplaced faith in modern medicine. Like the mysterious “anti-calories” in a can of diet soda. You really do encounter people who think that drinking a diet soda and having a slice of chocolate cake will cancel each other out. Any doctor or nutritionist will scoff at this, but it’s amazing how many people think that doing one good thing (health wise) means you can equally do one bad thing at no penalty. Humans love magical thinking like that.

Unintentionally, the medications contribute to this belief. People figure if they’re lowering blood sugar or lipids, maybe they can eat more steak and ice cream. That’s an unintended consequence of modern medicine. It’s not even limited to nonmedical people. When Lipitor came to market in the late 1990s, one of my attendings called it “a license to eat.” Sadly, as the new study proves, he wasn’t that far from the truth.

People want an easy cure. A pill that makes it all better. That’s human nature. But the real problem, for all the great work we’ve done in medications, is that many patients don’t want to be an active participant in their own care. Exercising and maintaining a healthy diet are hard work, in spite of all the evidence showing their benefits (especially when combined with modern medicine, which is the whole idea in the first place). So it’s much easier for them to place all the responsibility on doctors and medications, and just take a simple pill to fix everything.

As this study shows, it doesn’t work that way.
 

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

Recently, a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that taking statins and blood pressure medications doesn’t lead to healthier lifestyles.

copyright Jeffrey Hamilton/Thinkstock

This should surprise no one practicing medicine today. With absolutely no scientific data to back up the next statement, I’m willing to bet a study on oral antiglycemics for type 2 diabetes would yield similar results.

The problem here is that these drugs don’t change human nature, and I’m not belittling their ability to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Developed nations nowadays live in a world of plenty. For most of us, there’s not only no shortage of food options, but the majority of what’s out there is the worst stuff for your health. Salty, dense calories, high-fat, sweetened – for most of us that’s a normal day of eating. It tastes good. Two million years of evolution have programmed us to eat similar stuff because in the wild it sustains survival.

In the city and suburbs, however, that’s not the case.

Food manufacturers make it and stores sell it because, quite bluntly, it makes money. The profit margin for unhealthy stuff is higher than that for fruits and vegetables. If you’re trying to run a successful business, which one would you choose to sell?

As long as people are going to eat unhealthy stuff, others will sell it to them. All the medical breakthroughs in the world won’t change that.

Same with exercise. Some people love to exercise. Some people catch the bug to do it consistently. But most try for a few weeks, usually in January-February, then give up because they don’t have time, or the will, or both.

Medical breakthroughs won’t fix that, either.

There’s also, I suspect, a component of misplaced faith in modern medicine. Like the mysterious “anti-calories” in a can of diet soda. You really do encounter people who think that drinking a diet soda and having a slice of chocolate cake will cancel each other out. Any doctor or nutritionist will scoff at this, but it’s amazing how many people think that doing one good thing (health wise) means you can equally do one bad thing at no penalty. Humans love magical thinking like that.