Clinical Endocrinology News

Clinicians should consider the use of medication for adults with untreated stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg) whose 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is <10% and who fail to meet the blood pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg after 6 months of guideline-based lifestyle therapy, the American Heart Association (AHA) advises in new scientific statement.

The statement was published online April 29 in Hypertension.

The recommendation complements the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Management Guidelines, which do not fully address how to manage untreated stage 1 hypertension, the AHA says.

“There are no treatment recommendations in current guidelines for patients who are at relatively low short-term risk of heart disease when blood pressure does not drop below 130 mm Hg after six months of recommended lifestyle changes. This statement fills that gap,” Daniel W. Jones, MD, chair of the statement writing group and a past president of the AHA, said in a news release.

If after 6 months with lifestyle changes, blood pressure does not improve, lifestyle therapy should be continued and “clinicians should consider adding medications to control blood pressure,” said Dr. Jones, professor and dean emeritus, University of Mississippi, Jackson.

Healthy lifestyle changes to lower blood pressure include achieving ideal body weight, exercising (30 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity on most days, if possible), limiting dietary sodium, enhancing potassium intake, and following the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which is plentiful in fruits and vegetables with low-fat dairy products and reduced saturated fat and total fat. In addition, patients should be advised to limit alcohol intake and to not smoke.

The writing group acknowledges that these goals can be hard to achieve and maintain over time.

“It is very hard in America and most industrialized countries to limit sodium sufficiently to lower blood pressure, and it is difficult for all of us to maintain a healthy weight in what I refer to as a toxic food environment,” Dr. Jones said.

“We want clinicians to advise patients to take healthy lifestyle changes seriously and do their best. We certainly prefer to achieve blood pressure goals without adding medication; however, successfully treating high blood pressure does extend both years and quality of life,” said Dr. Jones.

The AHA statement also addresses cases in which adults were found to have hypertension during adolescence or childhood and were prescribed antihypertensive drug therapy.

In this patient population, clinicians should consider the original indications for starting antihypertensive drug treatment and the need to continue the medication and lifestyle therapy as young adults, the AHA advises.

“In young adults with stage 1 hypertension who are not controlled with lifestyle therapy, special consideration should be given to use of antihypertensive medication in individuals with a family history of premature CVD, a history of hypertension during pregnancy, or a personal history of premature birth,” the AHA states.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Hypertension; the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; and the Stroke Council.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians should consider the use of medication for adults with untreated stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg) whose 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is <10% and who fail to meet the blood pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg after 6 months of guideline-based lifestyle therapy, the American Heart Association (AHA) advises in new scientific statement.

The statement was published online April 29 in Hypertension.

The recommendation complements the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Management Guidelines, which do not fully address how to manage untreated stage 1 hypertension, the AHA says.

“There are no treatment recommendations in current guidelines for patients who are at relatively low short-term risk of heart disease when blood pressure does not drop below 130 mm Hg after six months of recommended lifestyle changes. This statement fills that gap,” Daniel W. Jones, MD, chair of the statement writing group and a past president of the AHA, said in a news release.

If after 6 months with lifestyle changes, blood pressure does not improve, lifestyle therapy should be continued and “clinicians should consider adding medications to control blood pressure,” said Dr. Jones, professor and dean emeritus, University of Mississippi, Jackson.

Healthy lifestyle changes to lower blood pressure include achieving ideal body weight, exercising (30 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity on most days, if possible), limiting dietary sodium, enhancing potassium intake, and following the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which is plentiful in fruits and vegetables with low-fat dairy products and reduced saturated fat and total fat. In addition, patients should be advised to limit alcohol intake and to not smoke.

The writing group acknowledges that these goals can be hard to achieve and maintain over time.

“It is very hard in America and most industrialized countries to limit sodium sufficiently to lower blood pressure, and it is difficult for all of us to maintain a healthy weight in what I refer to as a toxic food environment,” Dr. Jones said.

“We want clinicians to advise patients to take healthy lifestyle changes seriously and do their best. We certainly prefer to achieve blood pressure goals without adding medication; however, successfully treating high blood pressure does extend both years and quality of life,” said Dr. Jones.

The AHA statement also addresses cases in which adults were found to have hypertension during adolescence or childhood and were prescribed antihypertensive drug therapy.

In this patient population, clinicians should consider the original indications for starting antihypertensive drug treatment and the need to continue the medication and lifestyle therapy as young adults, the AHA advises.

“In young adults with stage 1 hypertension who are not controlled with lifestyle therapy, special consideration should be given to use of antihypertensive medication in individuals with a family history of premature CVD, a history of hypertension during pregnancy, or a personal history of premature birth,” the AHA states.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Hypertension; the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; and the Stroke Council.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians should consider the use of medication for adults with untreated stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg) whose 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is <10% and who fail to meet the blood pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg after 6 months of guideline-based lifestyle therapy, the American Heart Association (AHA) advises in new scientific statement.

The statement was published online April 29 in Hypertension.

The recommendation complements the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Management Guidelines, which do not fully address how to manage untreated stage 1 hypertension, the AHA says.

“There are no treatment recommendations in current guidelines for patients who are at relatively low short-term risk of heart disease when blood pressure does not drop below 130 mm Hg after six months of recommended lifestyle changes. This statement fills that gap,” Daniel W. Jones, MD, chair of the statement writing group and a past president of the AHA, said in a news release.

If after 6 months with lifestyle changes, blood pressure does not improve, lifestyle therapy should be continued and “clinicians should consider adding medications to control blood pressure,” said Dr. Jones, professor and dean emeritus, University of Mississippi, Jackson.

Healthy lifestyle changes to lower blood pressure include achieving ideal body weight, exercising (30 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity on most days, if possible), limiting dietary sodium, enhancing potassium intake, and following the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which is plentiful in fruits and vegetables with low-fat dairy products and reduced saturated fat and total fat. In addition, patients should be advised to limit alcohol intake and to not smoke.

The writing group acknowledges that these goals can be hard to achieve and maintain over time.

“It is very hard in America and most industrialized countries to limit sodium sufficiently to lower blood pressure, and it is difficult for all of us to maintain a healthy weight in what I refer to as a toxic food environment,” Dr. Jones said.

“We want clinicians to advise patients to take healthy lifestyle changes seriously and do their best. We certainly prefer to achieve blood pressure goals without adding medication; however, successfully treating high blood pressure does extend both years and quality of life,” said Dr. Jones.

The AHA statement also addresses cases in which adults were found to have hypertension during adolescence or childhood and were prescribed antihypertensive drug therapy.

In this patient population, clinicians should consider the original indications for starting antihypertensive drug treatment and the need to continue the medication and lifestyle therapy as young adults, the AHA advises.

“In young adults with stage 1 hypertension who are not controlled with lifestyle therapy, special consideration should be given to use of antihypertensive medication in individuals with a family history of premature CVD, a history of hypertension during pregnancy, or a personal history of premature birth,” the AHA states.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Hypertension; the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; and the Stroke Council.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

Primary care for LGBTQ+ patients should focus on early identification and management of unique health risks, according to a leading expert.

Patients who are transgender, for instance, are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2019 May 22. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR37229.v1), and those who are also Black have an estimated HIV prevalence of 62%, demonstrating the cumulative, negative health effects of intersectionality (www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/hiv-prevalence.html).

“Experiences with marginalization and stigma directly relate to some of the poor physical and mental health outcomes that these patients experience,” Megan McNamara, MD, said during a presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Dr. McNamara, who is director of the Gender Identity Veteran’s Experience (GIVE) Clinic, Veterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, offered a brief guide to managing LGBTQ+ patients. She emphasized increased rates of psychological distress and substance abuse, and encouraged familiarity with specific risks associated with three subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), and those who are transgender.

Men who have sex with men

According to Dr. McNamara, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eligibility criteria, which require that the patient is HIV negative, has had a male sex partner in the past 6 months, is not in a monogamous relationship, and has had anal sex or a bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the past 6 months. The two PrEP options, emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, are equally effective and have similar safety profiles, Dr. McNamara said, but patients with impaired renal function should receive the alafenamide formulation.

Dr. McNamara also advised screening gay men for extragenital STIs, noting a 13.3% increased risk. When asked about anal Pap testing for HPV, Dr. McNamara called the subject “very controversial,” and ultimately recommended against it, citing a lack of data linking anal HPV infection and dysplasia with later development of rectal carcinoma, as well as the nonactionable impact of a positive result.

“For me, the issue is ... if [a positive anal Pap test] is not going to change my management, if I don’t know that the anal HPV that I diagnose will result in cancer, should I continue to monitor it?” Dr. McNamara said.

Women who have sex with women

Beyond higher rates of psychological distress and substance abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, Dr. McNamara described increased risks of overweight and obesity, higher rates of smoking, and lower rates of Pap testing, all of which should prompt clinicians to advise accordingly, with cervical cancer screening in alignment with guidelines. Clinicians should also discuss HPV vaccination with patients, taking care to weigh benefits and risks, as “catch-up” HPV vaccination is not unilaterally recommended for adults older than 26 years.

Transgender patients

Discussing transgender patients, Dr. McNamara focused on cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), first noting the significant psychological benefits, including improvements in depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety/agoraphobia, and quality of life.

According to Dr. McNamara, CSHT is relatively simple and may be safely administered by primary care providers. For transmasculine patients, testosterone supplementation is all that is needed, whereas transfeminine patients will require spironolactone or GnRH agonists to reduce testosterone and estradiol to increase feminizing hormones to pubertal levels.

CSHT is not without risks, Dr. McNamara said, including “very high” risks of erythrocytosis among transmasculine patients and venous thromboembolic disease among transfeminine patients; but these risks need to be considered in the context of an approximate 40% suicide rate among transgender individuals.

“I can tell you in my own practice that these [suicide] data ring true,” Dr. McNamara said. “Many, many of my patients have attempted suicide, so [CSHT] is something that you really want to think about right away.”

Even when additional risk factors are present, such as preexisting cardiovascular disease, Dr. McNamara suggested that “there are very few absolute contraindications to CSHT,” and described it as a “life-sustaining treatment” that should be viewed analogously with any other long-term management strategy, such as therapy for diabetes or hypertension.

Fostering a transgender-friendly practice

In an interview, Nicole Nisly, MD, codirector of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, reflected upon Dr. McNamara’s presentation, noting that primary care providers – with a little education – are the best candidates to care for transgender patients.

“I think [primary care providers] do a better job [caring for transgender patients] than endocrinologists, honestly, because they can provide care for the whole person,” Dr. Nisly said. “They can do a Pap, they can do STI screening, they can assess mood, they can [evaluate] safety, and the whole person, as opposed to endocrinologists, who do hormone therapy, but somebody else does everything else.”

Dr. Nisly emphasized the importance of personalizing care for transgender individuals, which depends upon a welcoming practice environment, with careful attention to language.

Foremost, Dr. Nisly recommended asking patients for their preferred name, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

“One of the most difficult things [for transgender patients] is to see notes with the wrong name – the name that makes them feel uncomfortable – or the wrong pronoun,” Dr. Nisly said. “That’s very important to the community.”

Dr. Nisly also recommended an alternative term for cross-sex hormone therapy.

“I hate cross-sex hormone therapy terminology, honestly,” Dr. Nisly said. “I just think it’s so unwelcoming, and I think most of our patients don’t like the terminology, so we use ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’”

Dr. Nisly explained that the term “cross-sex” assumes a conventional definition of sex, which is inherently flawed.

When discussing certain medical risk factors, such as pregnancy or HIV, it is helpful to know “sex assigned at birth” for both patients and their sexual partners, Dr. Nisly said. It’s best to ask in this way, instead of using terms like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” as “sex assigned at birth” is “terminology the community recognizes, affirms, and feels comfortable with.”

Concerning management of medical risk factors, Dr. Nisly offered some additional perspectives.

For one, she recommended giving PrEP to any patient who has a desire to be on PrEP, noting that this desire can indicate a change in future sexual practices, which the CDC criteria do not anticipate. She also advised in-hospital self-swabbing for extragenital STIs, as this can increase patient comfort and adherence. And, in contrast with Dr. McNamara, Dr. Nisly recommended anal Pap screening for any man that has sex with men and anyone with HIV of any gender. She noted that rates of anal dysplasia are “pretty high” among men who have sex with men, and that detection may reduce cancer risk.

For clinicians who would like to learn more about caring for transgender patients, Dr. Nisly recommended that they start by reading the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines.

“It’s about 300 pages,” Dr. Nisly said, “but it is great.”

Dr. McNamara and Dr. Nisly reported no conflicts of interest.

Primary care for LGBTQ+ patients should focus on early identification and management of unique health risks, according to a leading expert.

Patients who are transgender, for instance, are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2019 May 22. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR37229.v1), and those who are also Black have an estimated HIV prevalence of 62%, demonstrating the cumulative, negative health effects of intersectionality (www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/hiv-prevalence.html).

“Experiences with marginalization and stigma directly relate to some of the poor physical and mental health outcomes that these patients experience,” Megan McNamara, MD, said during a presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Dr. McNamara, who is director of the Gender Identity Veteran’s Experience (GIVE) Clinic, Veterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, offered a brief guide to managing LGBTQ+ patients. She emphasized increased rates of psychological distress and substance abuse, and encouraged familiarity with specific risks associated with three subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), and those who are transgender.

Men who have sex with men

According to Dr. McNamara, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eligibility criteria, which require that the patient is HIV negative, has had a male sex partner in the past 6 months, is not in a monogamous relationship, and has had anal sex or a bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the past 6 months. The two PrEP options, emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, are equally effective and have similar safety profiles, Dr. McNamara said, but patients with impaired renal function should receive the alafenamide formulation.

Dr. McNamara also advised screening gay men for extragenital STIs, noting a 13.3% increased risk. When asked about anal Pap testing for HPV, Dr. McNamara called the subject “very controversial,” and ultimately recommended against it, citing a lack of data linking anal HPV infection and dysplasia with later development of rectal carcinoma, as well as the nonactionable impact of a positive result.

“For me, the issue is ... if [a positive anal Pap test] is not going to change my management, if I don’t know that the anal HPV that I diagnose will result in cancer, should I continue to monitor it?” Dr. McNamara said.

Women who have sex with women

Beyond higher rates of psychological distress and substance abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, Dr. McNamara described increased risks of overweight and obesity, higher rates of smoking, and lower rates of Pap testing, all of which should prompt clinicians to advise accordingly, with cervical cancer screening in alignment with guidelines. Clinicians should also discuss HPV vaccination with patients, taking care to weigh benefits and risks, as “catch-up” HPV vaccination is not unilaterally recommended for adults older than 26 years.

Transgender patients

Discussing transgender patients, Dr. McNamara focused on cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), first noting the significant psychological benefits, including improvements in depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety/agoraphobia, and quality of life.

According to Dr. McNamara, CSHT is relatively simple and may be safely administered by primary care providers. For transmasculine patients, testosterone supplementation is all that is needed, whereas transfeminine patients will require spironolactone or GnRH agonists to reduce testosterone and estradiol to increase feminizing hormones to pubertal levels.

CSHT is not without risks, Dr. McNamara said, including “very high” risks of erythrocytosis among transmasculine patients and venous thromboembolic disease among transfeminine patients; but these risks need to be considered in the context of an approximate 40% suicide rate among transgender individuals.

“I can tell you in my own practice that these [suicide] data ring true,” Dr. McNamara said. “Many, many of my patients have attempted suicide, so [CSHT] is something that you really want to think about right away.”

Even when additional risk factors are present, such as preexisting cardiovascular disease, Dr. McNamara suggested that “there are very few absolute contraindications to CSHT,” and described it as a “life-sustaining treatment” that should be viewed analogously with any other long-term management strategy, such as therapy for diabetes or hypertension.

Fostering a transgender-friendly practice

In an interview, Nicole Nisly, MD, codirector of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, reflected upon Dr. McNamara’s presentation, noting that primary care providers – with a little education – are the best candidates to care for transgender patients.

“I think [primary care providers] do a better job [caring for transgender patients] than endocrinologists, honestly, because they can provide care for the whole person,” Dr. Nisly said. “They can do a Pap, they can do STI screening, they can assess mood, they can [evaluate] safety, and the whole person, as opposed to endocrinologists, who do hormone therapy, but somebody else does everything else.”

Dr. Nisly emphasized the importance of personalizing care for transgender individuals, which depends upon a welcoming practice environment, with careful attention to language.

Foremost, Dr. Nisly recommended asking patients for their preferred name, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

“One of the most difficult things [for transgender patients] is to see notes with the wrong name – the name that makes them feel uncomfortable – or the wrong pronoun,” Dr. Nisly said. “That’s very important to the community.”

Dr. Nisly also recommended an alternative term for cross-sex hormone therapy.

“I hate cross-sex hormone therapy terminology, honestly,” Dr. Nisly said. “I just think it’s so unwelcoming, and I think most of our patients don’t like the terminology, so we use ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’”

Dr. Nisly explained that the term “cross-sex” assumes a conventional definition of sex, which is inherently flawed.

When discussing certain medical risk factors, such as pregnancy or HIV, it is helpful to know “sex assigned at birth” for both patients and their sexual partners, Dr. Nisly said. It’s best to ask in this way, instead of using terms like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” as “sex assigned at birth” is “terminology the community recognizes, affirms, and feels comfortable with.”

Concerning management of medical risk factors, Dr. Nisly offered some additional perspectives.

For one, she recommended giving PrEP to any patient who has a desire to be on PrEP, noting that this desire can indicate a change in future sexual practices, which the CDC criteria do not anticipate. She also advised in-hospital self-swabbing for extragenital STIs, as this can increase patient comfort and adherence. And, in contrast with Dr. McNamara, Dr. Nisly recommended anal Pap screening for any man that has sex with men and anyone with HIV of any gender. She noted that rates of anal dysplasia are “pretty high” among men who have sex with men, and that detection may reduce cancer risk.

For clinicians who would like to learn more about caring for transgender patients, Dr. Nisly recommended that they start by reading the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines.

“It’s about 300 pages,” Dr. Nisly said, “but it is great.”

Dr. McNamara and Dr. Nisly reported no conflicts of interest.

Primary care for LGBTQ+ patients should focus on early identification and management of unique health risks, according to a leading expert.

Patients who are transgender, for instance, are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2019 May 22. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR37229.v1), and those who are also Black have an estimated HIV prevalence of 62%, demonstrating the cumulative, negative health effects of intersectionality (www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/hiv-prevalence.html).

“Experiences with marginalization and stigma directly relate to some of the poor physical and mental health outcomes that these patients experience,” Megan McNamara, MD, said during a presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Dr. McNamara, who is director of the Gender Identity Veteran’s Experience (GIVE) Clinic, Veterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, offered a brief guide to managing LGBTQ+ patients. She emphasized increased rates of psychological distress and substance abuse, and encouraged familiarity with specific risks associated with three subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), and those who are transgender.

Men who have sex with men

According to Dr. McNamara, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eligibility criteria, which require that the patient is HIV negative, has had a male sex partner in the past 6 months, is not in a monogamous relationship, and has had anal sex or a bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the past 6 months. The two PrEP options, emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, are equally effective and have similar safety profiles, Dr. McNamara said, but patients with impaired renal function should receive the alafenamide formulation.

Dr. McNamara also advised screening gay men for extragenital STIs, noting a 13.3% increased risk. When asked about anal Pap testing for HPV, Dr. McNamara called the subject “very controversial,” and ultimately recommended against it, citing a lack of data linking anal HPV infection and dysplasia with later development of rectal carcinoma, as well as the nonactionable impact of a positive result.

“For me, the issue is ... if [a positive anal Pap test] is not going to change my management, if I don’t know that the anal HPV that I diagnose will result in cancer, should I continue to monitor it?” Dr. McNamara said.

Women who have sex with women

Beyond higher rates of psychological distress and substance abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, Dr. McNamara described increased risks of overweight and obesity, higher rates of smoking, and lower rates of Pap testing, all of which should prompt clinicians to advise accordingly, with cervical cancer screening in alignment with guidelines. Clinicians should also discuss HPV vaccination with patients, taking care to weigh benefits and risks, as “catch-up” HPV vaccination is not unilaterally recommended for adults older than 26 years.

Transgender patients

Discussing transgender patients, Dr. McNamara focused on cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), first noting the significant psychological benefits, including improvements in depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety/agoraphobia, and quality of life.

According to Dr. McNamara, CSHT is relatively simple and may be safely administered by primary care providers. For transmasculine patients, testosterone supplementation is all that is needed, whereas transfeminine patients will require spironolactone or GnRH agonists to reduce testosterone and estradiol to increase feminizing hormones to pubertal levels.

CSHT is not without risks, Dr. McNamara said, including “very high” risks of erythrocytosis among transmasculine patients and venous thromboembolic disease among transfeminine patients; but these risks need to be considered in the context of an approximate 40% suicide rate among transgender individuals.

“I can tell you in my own practice that these [suicide] data ring true,” Dr. McNamara said. “Many, many of my patients have attempted suicide, so [CSHT] is something that you really want to think about right away.”

Even when additional risk factors are present, such as preexisting cardiovascular disease, Dr. McNamara suggested that “there are very few absolute contraindications to CSHT,” and described it as a “life-sustaining treatment” that should be viewed analogously with any other long-term management strategy, such as therapy for diabetes or hypertension.

Fostering a transgender-friendly practice

In an interview, Nicole Nisly, MD, codirector of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, reflected upon Dr. McNamara’s presentation, noting that primary care providers – with a little education – are the best candidates to care for transgender patients.

“I think [primary care providers] do a better job [caring for transgender patients] than endocrinologists, honestly, because they can provide care for the whole person,” Dr. Nisly said. “They can do a Pap, they can do STI screening, they can assess mood, they can [evaluate] safety, and the whole person, as opposed to endocrinologists, who do hormone therapy, but somebody else does everything else.”

Dr. Nisly emphasized the importance of personalizing care for transgender individuals, which depends upon a welcoming practice environment, with careful attention to language.

Foremost, Dr. Nisly recommended asking patients for their preferred name, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

“One of the most difficult things [for transgender patients] is to see notes with the wrong name – the name that makes them feel uncomfortable – or the wrong pronoun,” Dr. Nisly said. “That’s very important to the community.”

Dr. Nisly also recommended an alternative term for cross-sex hormone therapy.

“I hate cross-sex hormone therapy terminology, honestly,” Dr. Nisly said. “I just think it’s so unwelcoming, and I think most of our patients don’t like the terminology, so we use ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’”

Dr. Nisly explained that the term “cross-sex” assumes a conventional definition of sex, which is inherently flawed.

When discussing certain medical risk factors, such as pregnancy or HIV, it is helpful to know “sex assigned at birth” for both patients and their sexual partners, Dr. Nisly said. It’s best to ask in this way, instead of using terms like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” as “sex assigned at birth” is “terminology the community recognizes, affirms, and feels comfortable with.”

Concerning management of medical risk factors, Dr. Nisly offered some additional perspectives.

For one, she recommended giving PrEP to any patient who has a desire to be on PrEP, noting that this desire can indicate a change in future sexual practices, which the CDC criteria do not anticipate. She also advised in-hospital self-swabbing for extragenital STIs, as this can increase patient comfort and adherence. And, in contrast with Dr. McNamara, Dr. Nisly recommended anal Pap screening for any man that has sex with men and anyone with HIV of any gender. She noted that rates of anal dysplasia are “pretty high” among men who have sex with men, and that detection may reduce cancer risk.

For clinicians who would like to learn more about caring for transgender patients, Dr. Nisly recommended that they start by reading the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines.

“It’s about 300 pages,” Dr. Nisly said, “but it is great.”

Dr. McNamara and Dr. Nisly reported no conflicts of interest.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.

“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.

The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.

For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.

National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.

“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.

Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.

“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.

“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”

Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.

“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
 

Patients testify

Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.

Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”

Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.

“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”

She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.

“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”

Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.

“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.

“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.

The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.

For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.

National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.

“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.

Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.

“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.

“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”

Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.

“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
 

Patients testify

Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.

Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”

Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.

“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”

She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.

“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”

Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.

“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.

“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.

The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.

For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.

National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.

“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.

Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.

“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.

“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”

Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.

“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
 

Patients testify

Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.

Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”

Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.

“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”

She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.

“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”

Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.

“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continues to recommend that clinicians screen all adults aged 18 years and older for high blood pressure and that they confirm a diagnosis of hypertension with blood pressure measurements taken outside the office before starting treatment.

mixetto/Serbia/Getty Images

This grade A recommendation is consistent with the 2015 recommendation from the task force.

Hypertension affects approximately 45% of adults in the United States and is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.

Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concluded with high certainty that there was “substantial net benefit” from screening adults for hypertension in clinical office settings.

The reaffirmation recommendation clarifies that initial screening should be performed with office-based blood pressure measurement.

The task force found “convincing” evidence that screening for and treatment of hypertension detected in clinical office settings substantially reduces cardiovascular events and have few major harms.

To confirm a diagnosis of hypertension outside the office before starting treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring is recommended. Blood pressure measurements should be taken at the brachial artery with a validated and accurate device in a seated position after 5 minutes of rest.

Although evidence regarding optimal screening intervals is limited, the task force says “reasonable” options include screening for hypertension every year for adults aged 40 years or older and for adults who are at increased risk for hypertension, such as Black persons, persons with high-normal blood pressure, or those who are overweight or obese.

Screening less frequently (every 3-5 years) is appropriate for adults aged 18-39 years who are not at increased risk for hypertension and who have received a prior blood pressure reading that was in the normal range, said the task force, led by Alex Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

The recommendation and supporting evidence report were published online April 27, 2021, in JAMA.
 

‘Screening is just the first step’

In a JAMA editorial, Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and coauthors said the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that “rapid and significant innovation in science, health care, and society is possible. Implementing the latest USPSTF recommendations will require widespread changes to how the health care system and other entities screen for hypertension.

“Yet screening is just the first step in a long road to controlling hypertension. Medicine and society need to implement a variety of interventions proven to be effective in controlling blood pressure at scale,” the editorialists said.

“Additionally, these efforts need to consider how to achieve success for all people. This will require working to address the roots of structural racism and reduce the racial disparities that increase hypertension-related morbidity and mortality for vulnerable populations,” they added.

“These changes will take innovation in how care delivery is provided at both the individual and population levels – lessons the health care system and society learned are achievable through the response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Abdalla and colleagues concluded.

The USPSTF and Dr. Abdalla reported no relevant financial relationships. One editorialist reported receiving personal fees from Livongo and Cerner and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continues to recommend that clinicians screen all adults aged 18 years and older for high blood pressure and that they confirm a diagnosis of hypertension with blood pressure measurements taken outside the office before starting treatment.

mixetto/Serbia/Getty Images

This grade A recommendation is consistent with the 2015 recommendation from the task force.

Hypertension affects approximately 45% of adults in the United States and is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.

Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concluded with high certainty that there was “substantial net benefit” from screening adults for hypertension in clinical office settings.

The reaffirmation recommendation clarifies that initial screening should be performed with office-based blood pressure measurement.

The task force found “convincing” evidence that screening for and treatment of hypertension detected in clinical office settings substantially reduces cardiovascular events and have few major harms.

To confirm a diagnosis of hypertension outside the office before starting treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring is recommended. Blood pressure measurements should be taken at the brachial artery with a validated and accurate device in a seated position after 5 minutes of rest.

Although evidence regarding optimal screening intervals is limited, the task force says “reasonable” options include screening for hypertension every year for adults aged 40 years or older and for adults who are at increased risk for hypertension, such as Black persons, persons with high-normal blood pressure, or those who are overweight or obese.

Screening less frequently (every 3-5 years) is appropriate for adults aged 18-39 years who are not at increased risk for hypertension and who have received a prior blood pressure reading that was in the normal range, said the task force, led by Alex Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

The recommendation and supporting evidence report were published online April 27, 2021, in JAMA.
 

‘Screening is just the first step’

In a JAMA editorial, Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and coauthors said the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that “rapid and significant innovation in science, health care, and society is possible. Implementing the latest USPSTF recommendations will require widespread changes to how the health care system and other entities screen for hypertension.

“Yet screening is just the first step in a long road to controlling hypertension. Medicine and society need to implement a variety of interventions proven to be effective in controlling blood pressure at scale,” the editorialists said.

“Additionally, these efforts need to consider how to achieve success for all people. This will require working to address the roots of structural racism and reduce the racial disparities that increase hypertension-related morbidity and mortality for vulnerable populations,” they added.

“These changes will take innovation in how care delivery is provided at both the individual and population levels – lessons the health care system and society learned are achievable through the response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Abdalla and colleagues concluded.

The USPSTF and Dr. Abdalla reported no relevant financial relationships. One editorialist reported receiving personal fees from Livongo and Cerner and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continues to recommend that clinicians screen all adults aged 18 years and older for high blood pressure and that they confirm a diagnosis of hypertension with blood pressure measurements taken outside the office before starting treatment.

mixetto/Serbia/Getty Images

This grade A recommendation is consistent with the 2015 recommendation from the task force.

Hypertension affects approximately 45% of adults in the United States and is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.

Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concluded with high certainty that there was “substantial net benefit” from screening adults for hypertension in clinical office settings.

The reaffirmation recommendation clarifies that initial screening should be performed with office-based blood pressure measurement.

The task force found “convincing” evidence that screening for and treatment of hypertension detected in clinical office settings substantially reduces cardiovascular events and have few major harms.

To confirm a diagnosis of hypertension outside the office before starting treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring is recommended. Blood pressure measurements should be taken at the brachial artery with a validated and accurate device in a seated position after 5 minutes of rest.

Although evidence regarding optimal screening intervals is limited, the task force says “reasonable” options include screening for hypertension every year for adults aged 40 years or older and for adults who are at increased risk for hypertension, such as Black persons, persons with high-normal blood pressure, or those who are overweight or obese.

Screening less frequently (every 3-5 years) is appropriate for adults aged 18-39 years who are not at increased risk for hypertension and who have received a prior blood pressure reading that was in the normal range, said the task force, led by Alex Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

The recommendation and supporting evidence report were published online April 27, 2021, in JAMA.
 

‘Screening is just the first step’

In a JAMA editorial, Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and coauthors said the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that “rapid and significant innovation in science, health care, and society is possible. Implementing the latest USPSTF recommendations will require widespread changes to how the health care system and other entities screen for hypertension.

“Yet screening is just the first step in a long road to controlling hypertension. Medicine and society need to implement a variety of interventions proven to be effective in controlling blood pressure at scale,” the editorialists said.

“Additionally, these efforts need to consider how to achieve success for all people. This will require working to address the roots of structural racism and reduce the racial disparities that increase hypertension-related morbidity and mortality for vulnerable populations,” they added.

“These changes will take innovation in how care delivery is provided at both the individual and population levels – lessons the health care system and society learned are achievable through the response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Abdalla and colleagues concluded.

The USPSTF and Dr. Abdalla reported no relevant financial relationships. One editorialist reported receiving personal fees from Livongo and Cerner and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
 

“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.

“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.

The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.

The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.



Among the key findings:

• In patients with breast cancer,  has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
• Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
• The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
• The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
• Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
• Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.

The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.

The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.

“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
 

“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.

“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.

The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.

The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.



Among the key findings:

• In patients with breast cancer,  has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
• Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
• The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
• The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
• Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
• Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.

The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.

The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.

“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
 

“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.

“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.

The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.

The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.



Among the key findings:

• In patients with breast cancer,  has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
• Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
• The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
• The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
• Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
• Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.

The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.

The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.

“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.

ChrisPole/thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.

In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.

Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).

However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.

“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
 

Consider surveillance for Barrett’s

The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”

Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.

“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.

Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.

ChrisPole/thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.

In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.

Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).

However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.

“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
 

Consider surveillance for Barrett’s

The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”

Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.

“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.

Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.

ChrisPole/thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.

In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.

Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).

However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.

“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
 

Consider surveillance for Barrett’s

The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”

Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.

“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.

Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.