User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Second U.S. coronavirus patient confirmed
at a Jan. 24, 2020, press briefing.
The first U.S. case, a traveler who entered the United States at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was confirmed on Jan. 20.
A Chicago resident returning from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 13, 2020, developed symptoms of the disease and contacted her health care clinician and is currently being treated in isolation at an unnamed hospital, according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. The patient, a woman in her 60s, is in stable condition and remains hospitalized. She was not symptomatic on her flight to Chicago but developed symptoms in the following days after her return from Wuhan. She had limited contacts after her return, and all potential contacts are being tracked.
Dr. Messonnier said the CDC expects more cases in the United States but stressed that, although this is a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public is low. She noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that the CDC is following the developments hour by hour.
Jennifer Layden, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and state epidemiologist with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said public health preparations made it possible to quickly identify and arrange appropriate hospitalization for this patient. Allison Arwady, MD, Chicago Department of Health commissioner, said the Illinois Department of Health partnered with the CDC to test specimens quickly, which led to the diagnosis in this patient.
So far, 63 U.S. patients have been investigated for possible infection with the 2019-nCoV; 11 so far have tested negative and 2 have tested positive. Testing of the remaining potential cases and others is ongoing.
Currently, samples from patients with suspected 2010-nCoV infections are being sent to the CDC for testing, Dr. Messonnier said. The turnaround for testing is currently 4-6 hours. Respiratory samples and some blood samples are being tested by the CDC labs.
The CDC is developing diagnostic kits for public health authorities in the United States for local testing and will work with the World Health Organization to make these kits available to the international community when possible.
Dr. Messonnier said that, at present, the incubation period for this disease appears to be about 14 days, but she suggested that further study will be required to identify the range of time for contagion. She also said it is premature to compare the 2019-nCoV with previous coronavirus outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in terms of contagion or fatality rates.
Meanwhile, Andrew D. Mesecar, PhD, the Walther Professor in Cancer Structural Biology and head of the department of biochemistry at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., said on Jan. 24 in a news release that 2019-nCoV is genetically similar to the SARS variant. “MERS virus and the SARS virus are more different genetically,” noted Dr. Mesecar, whose team received the genome of 2019-nCoV on Jan. 17 and analyzed it the next day. “But the Wuhan virus is genetically almost identical to the SARS virus and, therefore, it is expected to look and act nearly the same. In another week or two, we’ll be able to begin to see if the virus is mutating.”
Dr. Messonnier said that nonessential travel to Wuhan is not recommended. In addition, she said, and all other visitors to China need to take appropriate precautions, such as handwashing and avoiding other individuals with respiratory illness.
Screenings at five U.S. airports will continue. So far, approximately 200 flights and 2,000 travelers have been screened as of Jan. 23. No cases were reported, but one traveler has been identified for further for evaluation. Possible contacts with those suspected of infection have been identified and alerted in 22 states.
The CDC will continue to update the public and will post information on the CDC newsroom website.
at a Jan. 24, 2020, press briefing.
The first U.S. case, a traveler who entered the United States at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was confirmed on Jan. 20.
A Chicago resident returning from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 13, 2020, developed symptoms of the disease and contacted her health care clinician and is currently being treated in isolation at an unnamed hospital, according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. The patient, a woman in her 60s, is in stable condition and remains hospitalized. She was not symptomatic on her flight to Chicago but developed symptoms in the following days after her return from Wuhan. She had limited contacts after her return, and all potential contacts are being tracked.
Dr. Messonnier said the CDC expects more cases in the United States but stressed that, although this is a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public is low. She noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that the CDC is following the developments hour by hour.
Jennifer Layden, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and state epidemiologist with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said public health preparations made it possible to quickly identify and arrange appropriate hospitalization for this patient. Allison Arwady, MD, Chicago Department of Health commissioner, said the Illinois Department of Health partnered with the CDC to test specimens quickly, which led to the diagnosis in this patient.
So far, 63 U.S. patients have been investigated for possible infection with the 2019-nCoV; 11 so far have tested negative and 2 have tested positive. Testing of the remaining potential cases and others is ongoing.
Currently, samples from patients with suspected 2010-nCoV infections are being sent to the CDC for testing, Dr. Messonnier said. The turnaround for testing is currently 4-6 hours. Respiratory samples and some blood samples are being tested by the CDC labs.
The CDC is developing diagnostic kits for public health authorities in the United States for local testing and will work with the World Health Organization to make these kits available to the international community when possible.
Dr. Messonnier said that, at present, the incubation period for this disease appears to be about 14 days, but she suggested that further study will be required to identify the range of time for contagion. She also said it is premature to compare the 2019-nCoV with previous coronavirus outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in terms of contagion or fatality rates.
Meanwhile, Andrew D. Mesecar, PhD, the Walther Professor in Cancer Structural Biology and head of the department of biochemistry at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., said on Jan. 24 in a news release that 2019-nCoV is genetically similar to the SARS variant. “MERS virus and the SARS virus are more different genetically,” noted Dr. Mesecar, whose team received the genome of 2019-nCoV on Jan. 17 and analyzed it the next day. “But the Wuhan virus is genetically almost identical to the SARS virus and, therefore, it is expected to look and act nearly the same. In another week or two, we’ll be able to begin to see if the virus is mutating.”
Dr. Messonnier said that nonessential travel to Wuhan is not recommended. In addition, she said, and all other visitors to China need to take appropriate precautions, such as handwashing and avoiding other individuals with respiratory illness.
Screenings at five U.S. airports will continue. So far, approximately 200 flights and 2,000 travelers have been screened as of Jan. 23. No cases were reported, but one traveler has been identified for further for evaluation. Possible contacts with those suspected of infection have been identified and alerted in 22 states.
The CDC will continue to update the public and will post information on the CDC newsroom website.
at a Jan. 24, 2020, press briefing.
The first U.S. case, a traveler who entered the United States at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was confirmed on Jan. 20.
A Chicago resident returning from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 13, 2020, developed symptoms of the disease and contacted her health care clinician and is currently being treated in isolation at an unnamed hospital, according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. The patient, a woman in her 60s, is in stable condition and remains hospitalized. She was not symptomatic on her flight to Chicago but developed symptoms in the following days after her return from Wuhan. She had limited contacts after her return, and all potential contacts are being tracked.
Dr. Messonnier said the CDC expects more cases in the United States but stressed that, although this is a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public is low. She noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that the CDC is following the developments hour by hour.
Jennifer Layden, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and state epidemiologist with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said public health preparations made it possible to quickly identify and arrange appropriate hospitalization for this patient. Allison Arwady, MD, Chicago Department of Health commissioner, said the Illinois Department of Health partnered with the CDC to test specimens quickly, which led to the diagnosis in this patient.
So far, 63 U.S. patients have been investigated for possible infection with the 2019-nCoV; 11 so far have tested negative and 2 have tested positive. Testing of the remaining potential cases and others is ongoing.
Currently, samples from patients with suspected 2010-nCoV infections are being sent to the CDC for testing, Dr. Messonnier said. The turnaround for testing is currently 4-6 hours. Respiratory samples and some blood samples are being tested by the CDC labs.
The CDC is developing diagnostic kits for public health authorities in the United States for local testing and will work with the World Health Organization to make these kits available to the international community when possible.
Dr. Messonnier said that, at present, the incubation period for this disease appears to be about 14 days, but she suggested that further study will be required to identify the range of time for contagion. She also said it is premature to compare the 2019-nCoV with previous coronavirus outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in terms of contagion or fatality rates.
Meanwhile, Andrew D. Mesecar, PhD, the Walther Professor in Cancer Structural Biology and head of the department of biochemistry at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., said on Jan. 24 in a news release that 2019-nCoV is genetically similar to the SARS variant. “MERS virus and the SARS virus are more different genetically,” noted Dr. Mesecar, whose team received the genome of 2019-nCoV on Jan. 17 and analyzed it the next day. “But the Wuhan virus is genetically almost identical to the SARS virus and, therefore, it is expected to look and act nearly the same. In another week or two, we’ll be able to begin to see if the virus is mutating.”
Dr. Messonnier said that nonessential travel to Wuhan is not recommended. In addition, she said, and all other visitors to China need to take appropriate precautions, such as handwashing and avoiding other individuals with respiratory illness.
Screenings at five U.S. airports will continue. So far, approximately 200 flights and 2,000 travelers have been screened as of Jan. 23. No cases were reported, but one traveler has been identified for further for evaluation. Possible contacts with those suspected of infection have been identified and alerted in 22 states.
The CDC will continue to update the public and will post information on the CDC newsroom website.
FDA: Cybersecurity vulnerabilities identified in GE Healthcare monitoring devices
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
New Vascepa indication opens up treatment to millions; “Most significant event since statins”
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Surgeon General scolds docs for failing to help patients quit smoking
The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.
“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.
“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”
In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.
The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.
EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.
However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
34 million still smoke
The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.
In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”
He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.
Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.
Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.
“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.
Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
Barriers to care
Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.
These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.
“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.
Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.
However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”
Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.
“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.
The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.
The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.
“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.
“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.
“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”
In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.
The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.
EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.
However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
34 million still smoke
The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.
In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”
He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.
Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.
Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.
“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.
Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
Barriers to care
Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.
These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.
“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.
Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.
However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”
Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.
“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.
The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.
The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.
“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Surgeon General is calling on all physicians to help patients stop smoking, noting that two-thirds of adult smokers say they want to quit, but only 40% report that their doctor has advised them to stop.
“I’ve got to own this as the nation’s doctor, and our health providers in this room and in this country need to own this stat,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, at a press briefing releasing a new report on smoking cessation.
“Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States,” he said. “So why are 40% of our health providers out there not advising smokers to quit when they come in?”
In the first U.S. Surgeon General report on smoking cessation in 30 years, the 700-page report suggests smoking cessation-related quality measures that include physician reimbursement would increase treatment.
The evidence also suggests that using electronic health records to prompt clinicians to inquire about smoking would increase cessation treatment.
EHRs could be used to “empower and enable” physicians to advise people to quit, said Dr. Adams. Physicians also need “the education and the confidence to be able to have that conversation, because too many of them look at someone and say: ‘Nope, too hard, too much effort, no, that’s not what they’re here for today,’ ” he said.
However, “simply asking, advising, and referring can be enough to get someone on the pathway to quitting,” Dr. Adams said.
34 million still smoke
The new report is the first on the topic released since 1990, and the 34th on tobacco control since the first one was issued in 1964, said Dr. Adams. Since that first report, adult smoking has declined 70%, but some 34 million Americans (14%) still smoke, he said.
In addition, Dr. Adams said that many subpopulations have been left behind, noting: “Cigarette smoking remains highest among LGBTQ adults, people with disabilities or limitations, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders.”
He also noted that 40% of cigarettes are consumed by those with a mental illness or a substance use disorder.
Quitting is beneficial at any age and can add as much as a decade to life expectancy, the report notes. Quitting also reduces the risk of 12 cancers, cuts the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reduces cardiovascular and stroke morbidity and mortality.
Pregnant women who quit also reduce their own morbidity and mortality risk and that of unborn children and infants, the report says.
“We know more about the science of quitting than ever before. We can, and must, do more to ensure that evidence-based cessation treatments are reaching the people that need them,” said Dr. Adams.
Less than one-third of those who have quit have used Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications or behavioral counseling, Dr. Adams said.
Barriers to care
Despite the existence of five nicotine replacement therapies and two nonnicotine oral medications, and more widespread availability of proven counseling methods – including web- or text-based programs – barriers to access remain.
These include a lack of insurance coverage for comprehensive, evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, which, when offered, increases availability and use.
“These are cost-effective interventions,” said Dr. Adams. “It’s penny wise and pound foolish to not give someone access to what we know works,” he said.
Because of the diversity of e-cigarette products and the variety of ways they are used, coupled with little research, it’s not currently possible to determine whether they are, or are not, useful smoking cessation tools, the report notes.
However, experts who compiled the report found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes containing nicotine may be “associated with increased smoking cessation compared with the use of e-cigarettes not containing nicotine.”
Asked whether the report’s conclusions might be interpreted as supportive of e-cigarettes, Dr. Adams said the report focused on smoking cessation, not initiation.
“I’m terribly concerned about the clear data that shows youth are initiating tobacco product use with e-cigarettes,” he said.
The Trump administration’s current proposal to partially restrict sales of some flavored e-cigarettes “reflects the science,” and “a balance between a desire to really make sure that people aren’t initiating with these products, but also a desire to again try to maintain a pathway for adults who want to use these products to quit to use them,” Dr. Adams said.
The focus, said Dr. Adams, should not be on e-cigarettes and whether they do, or do not, work.
“People want to quit,” he said. “We know what works. Not enough of them are getting it, and there are terrible disparities in who is and who is not getting access to effective and evidence-based treatment – that’s the story here.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Suicide rate higher than average for female clinicians
The suicide rate for women who provide health care is higher than that of all women of working age, while male health care practitioners are less likely to end their lives than working-age men as a whole, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2016, the suicide rate for women classified as “healthcare practitioners and technical” – a category that includes physicians and surgeons, as well as chiropractors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners – was 8.5 per 100,000 population, compared with 7.7 per 100,000 for all working women aged 16-64 years. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, Cora Peterson, PhD, and associates at the CDC said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
For females classified as “healthcare support” – medical assistants and transcriptionists, phlebotomists, and pharmacy aides – the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 was significantly higher than that of all working women, the investigators noted.
The suicide rate for males in each of the two occupation categories was 23.6 per 100,000 population in 2016, lower than the rate of 27.4 per 100,000 for males of all occupations, they said, based on data from 32 states that participated in the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System.
For males, the highest suicide rates in occupations meeting criteria for sample size were “construction and extraction” (49.4 per 100,000); “installation, maintenance, and repair” (36.9); and “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media” (32.0). Among females, the highest rates were seen in “construction and extraction” (25.5 per 100,000), “protective service” (14.0), and “transportation and material moving” (12.5), with healthcare support next, Dr. Peterson and associates reported.
“Although relative comparisons of suicide rates in this manner are useful for prevention purposes, Therefore, all industry sectors and occupational groups can contribute to reducing suicide incidence,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Peterson C et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):57-62.
The suicide rate for women who provide health care is higher than that of all women of working age, while male health care practitioners are less likely to end their lives than working-age men as a whole, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2016, the suicide rate for women classified as “healthcare practitioners and technical” – a category that includes physicians and surgeons, as well as chiropractors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners – was 8.5 per 100,000 population, compared with 7.7 per 100,000 for all working women aged 16-64 years. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, Cora Peterson, PhD, and associates at the CDC said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
For females classified as “healthcare support” – medical assistants and transcriptionists, phlebotomists, and pharmacy aides – the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 was significantly higher than that of all working women, the investigators noted.
The suicide rate for males in each of the two occupation categories was 23.6 per 100,000 population in 2016, lower than the rate of 27.4 per 100,000 for males of all occupations, they said, based on data from 32 states that participated in the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System.
For males, the highest suicide rates in occupations meeting criteria for sample size were “construction and extraction” (49.4 per 100,000); “installation, maintenance, and repair” (36.9); and “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media” (32.0). Among females, the highest rates were seen in “construction and extraction” (25.5 per 100,000), “protective service” (14.0), and “transportation and material moving” (12.5), with healthcare support next, Dr. Peterson and associates reported.
“Although relative comparisons of suicide rates in this manner are useful for prevention purposes, Therefore, all industry sectors and occupational groups can contribute to reducing suicide incidence,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Peterson C et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):57-62.
The suicide rate for women who provide health care is higher than that of all women of working age, while male health care practitioners are less likely to end their lives than working-age men as a whole, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2016, the suicide rate for women classified as “healthcare practitioners and technical” – a category that includes physicians and surgeons, as well as chiropractors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners – was 8.5 per 100,000 population, compared with 7.7 per 100,000 for all working women aged 16-64 years. That difference, however, was not statistically significant, Cora Peterson, PhD, and associates at the CDC said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
For females classified as “healthcare support” – medical assistants and transcriptionists, phlebotomists, and pharmacy aides – the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 was significantly higher than that of all working women, the investigators noted.
The suicide rate for males in each of the two occupation categories was 23.6 per 100,000 population in 2016, lower than the rate of 27.4 per 100,000 for males of all occupations, they said, based on data from 32 states that participated in the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System.
For males, the highest suicide rates in occupations meeting criteria for sample size were “construction and extraction” (49.4 per 100,000); “installation, maintenance, and repair” (36.9); and “arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media” (32.0). Among females, the highest rates were seen in “construction and extraction” (25.5 per 100,000), “protective service” (14.0), and “transportation and material moving” (12.5), with healthcare support next, Dr. Peterson and associates reported.
“Although relative comparisons of suicide rates in this manner are useful for prevention purposes, Therefore, all industry sectors and occupational groups can contribute to reducing suicide incidence,” they wrote.
SOURCE: Peterson C et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):57-62.
FROM MMWR
Actor Alan Alda discusses using empathy as an antidote to burnout
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.
That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.
“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”
Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”
Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.
“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.
“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”
During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.
“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”
“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”
The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.
Carbs, fat, and mortality: Types matter more than levels
The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.
“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.
The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.
The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.
The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.
The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.
This is an important study because the findings reinforce the already established concept that it’s the quality of the fat and carbohydrate a person eats that matters for health, rather than the relative levels of these nutrients. Eating unsaturated fats and unprocessed carbohydrates like whole grains, fruits, and legumes produces the greatest health and survival, while higher levels of saturated fats and processed carbs in the diet produce health problems. That’s much more important than whether a diet is low fat or low carb. This means sticking with the food principles advanced by the AHA diet, the DASH diet, and a Mediterranean diet.
High-fat and low-carb diets are popular because people who follow them lose weight over the short term, but those weight losses are hard to sustain longer term and create an opportunity for unhealthy effects if people eat the wrong fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Strategies that focus on healthier food choices like the Mediterranean or AHA diets can minimize disease and produce more sustainable weight control.
Robert A. Vogel, MD , is a cardiologist in Denver affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the VA Medical Center in Denver. He has been a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Institute in Doral, Fla. He made these comments in an interview.
This is an important study because the findings reinforce the already established concept that it’s the quality of the fat and carbohydrate a person eats that matters for health, rather than the relative levels of these nutrients. Eating unsaturated fats and unprocessed carbohydrates like whole grains, fruits, and legumes produces the greatest health and survival, while higher levels of saturated fats and processed carbs in the diet produce health problems. That’s much more important than whether a diet is low fat or low carb. This means sticking with the food principles advanced by the AHA diet, the DASH diet, and a Mediterranean diet.
High-fat and low-carb diets are popular because people who follow them lose weight over the short term, but those weight losses are hard to sustain longer term and create an opportunity for unhealthy effects if people eat the wrong fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Strategies that focus on healthier food choices like the Mediterranean or AHA diets can minimize disease and produce more sustainable weight control.
Robert A. Vogel, MD , is a cardiologist in Denver affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the VA Medical Center in Denver. He has been a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Institute in Doral, Fla. He made these comments in an interview.
This is an important study because the findings reinforce the already established concept that it’s the quality of the fat and carbohydrate a person eats that matters for health, rather than the relative levels of these nutrients. Eating unsaturated fats and unprocessed carbohydrates like whole grains, fruits, and legumes produces the greatest health and survival, while higher levels of saturated fats and processed carbs in the diet produce health problems. That’s much more important than whether a diet is low fat or low carb. This means sticking with the food principles advanced by the AHA diet, the DASH diet, and a Mediterranean diet.
High-fat and low-carb diets are popular because people who follow them lose weight over the short term, but those weight losses are hard to sustain longer term and create an opportunity for unhealthy effects if people eat the wrong fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Strategies that focus on healthier food choices like the Mediterranean or AHA diets can minimize disease and produce more sustainable weight control.
Robert A. Vogel, MD , is a cardiologist in Denver affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the VA Medical Center in Denver. He has been a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Institute in Doral, Fla. He made these comments in an interview.
The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.
“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.
The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.
The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.
The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.
The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.
The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.
“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.
The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.
The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.
The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.
The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.
The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.
SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.
REPORTING FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Why STEMI patients benefit from PCI of nonculprit lesions
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Cardiac biomarkers refine antihypertensive drug initiation decisions
PHILADELPHIA – Incorporation of cardiac biomarkers into current guideline-based decision-making regarding initiation of antihypertensive medication in patients with previously untreated mild or moderate high blood pressure leads to more appropriate and selective matching of intensive blood pressure control with true patient risk, Ambarish Pandey, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
That’s because the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA blood pressure guidelines recommend incorporating the ACC/AHA 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Calculator into decision making as to whether to start antihypertensive drug therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), but the risk calculator doesn’t account for the risk of heart failure.
Yet by far the greatest benefit of intensive BP lowering is in reducing the risk of developing heart failure, as demonstrated in the landmark SPRINT trial, which showed that intensive BP lowering achieved much greater risk reduction in new-onset heart failure than in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.
Thus, there’s a need for better strategies to guide antihypertensive therapy. And therein lies the rationale for incorporating into the risk assessment an individual’s values for N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), which reflects chronic myocardial stress, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which when elevated signals myocardial injury.
“Cardiac biomarkers are intermediate phenotypes from hypertension to future cardiovascular events. They can identify individuals at increased risk for atherosclerotic events, and at even higher risk for heart failure events,” explained Dr. Pandey, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
He presented a study of 12,987 participants in three major U.S. cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Dallas Heart Study. At baseline, none of the participants were on antihypertensive therapy or had known cardiovascular disease. During 10 years of prospective follow-up, 825 of them experienced a first cardiovascular disease event: 251 developed heart failure and 574 had an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Dr. Pandey and his coworkers calculated the cardiovascular event incidence rate and number-needed-to-treat with intensive antihypertensive drug therapy to prevent a first cardiovascular disease event on the basis of whether patients in the various BP categories were positive or negative for one or more biomarkers.
The results
Fifty-four percent of subjects had normal BP, defined in the guidelines as less than 120/80 mm Hg. Another 3% had BP in excess of 160/100 mm Hg. No controversy exists regarding pharmacotherapy in either of these groups: It’s not warranted in the former, essential in the latter.
Another 3,000 individuals had what the ACC/AHA guidelines define as elevated BP, meaning 120-129/<80 mm Hg, or low-risk stage 1 hypertension of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and a 10-year ASCVD risk score of less than 10%. Initiation of antihypertensive medication in these groups is not recommended in the guidelines. Yet 36% of these individuals had at least one positive cardiac biomarker. And here’s the eye-opening finding: Notably, the 10-year cardiovascular event incidence rate in this biomarker group not currently recommended for antihypertensive pharmacotherapy was 11%, more than double the 4.6% rate in the biomarker-negative group, which in turn was comparable to the 3.8% in the normal BP participants.
Antihypertensive therapy was recommended according to the guidelines in 20% of the total study population, comprising patients with stage 1 hypertension who had an ASCVD risk score of 10% or more as well as those with stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP greater than 140/90 mm Hg but less than 160/100 mm Hg. Forty-eight percent of these subjects were positive for at least one biomarker. Their cardiovascular incidence rate was 15.1%, compared to the 7.9% rate in biomarker-negative individuals.
The estimated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) with intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, as in SPRINT, to prevent one cardiovascular event in individuals not currently guideline-recommended for antihypertensive medications was 86 in those who were biomarker-negative. The NNT dropped to 36 in the biomarker-positive subgroup, a far more attractive figure that suggests a reasonable likelihood of benefit from intensive blood pressure control, in Dr. Pandey’s view.
Similarly, among individuals currently recommended for pharmacotherapy initiation, the NNTs were 49 if biomarker-negative, improving to 26 in those positive for one or both biomarkers, which was comparable to the NNT of 22 in the group with blood pressures greater than 160/100 mm Hg. The NNT of 49 in the biomarker-negative subgroup is in a borderline gray zone warranting individualized shared decision-making regarding pharmacotherapy, Dr. Pandey said.
In this study, an elevated hs-cTnT was defined as 6 ng/L or more, while an elevated NT-proBNP was considered to be at least 100 pg/mL.
“It’s noteworthy that the degree of elevation in hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP which were observed in our study were pretty subtle and much below the threshold used for diagnosis of ischemic events or heart failure. Thus, these elevations were largely representative of subtle chronic injury and not acute events,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member asked if the elevated biomarkers could simply be a surrogate for longer duration of exposure of the heart to high BP. Sure, Dr. Pandey replied, pointing to the 6-year greater average age of the biomarker-positive participants.
“It is likely that biomarker-positive status is capturing the culmination of longstanding exposure. But the thing about hypertension is there are no symptoms that can signal to the patient or the doctor that they have this disease, so testing for the biomarkers can actually capture the high-risk group that may have had hypertension for a long duration but now needs to be treated in order to prevent the advance of downstream adverse events,” he said.
Dr. Pandey reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Pandey A. AHA 2019 Abstract EP.AOS.521.141
PHILADELPHIA – Incorporation of cardiac biomarkers into current guideline-based decision-making regarding initiation of antihypertensive medication in patients with previously untreated mild or moderate high blood pressure leads to more appropriate and selective matching of intensive blood pressure control with true patient risk, Ambarish Pandey, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
That’s because the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA blood pressure guidelines recommend incorporating the ACC/AHA 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Calculator into decision making as to whether to start antihypertensive drug therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), but the risk calculator doesn’t account for the risk of heart failure.
Yet by far the greatest benefit of intensive BP lowering is in reducing the risk of developing heart failure, as demonstrated in the landmark SPRINT trial, which showed that intensive BP lowering achieved much greater risk reduction in new-onset heart failure than in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.
Thus, there’s a need for better strategies to guide antihypertensive therapy. And therein lies the rationale for incorporating into the risk assessment an individual’s values for N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), which reflects chronic myocardial stress, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which when elevated signals myocardial injury.
“Cardiac biomarkers are intermediate phenotypes from hypertension to future cardiovascular events. They can identify individuals at increased risk for atherosclerotic events, and at even higher risk for heart failure events,” explained Dr. Pandey, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
He presented a study of 12,987 participants in three major U.S. cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Dallas Heart Study. At baseline, none of the participants were on antihypertensive therapy or had known cardiovascular disease. During 10 years of prospective follow-up, 825 of them experienced a first cardiovascular disease event: 251 developed heart failure and 574 had an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Dr. Pandey and his coworkers calculated the cardiovascular event incidence rate and number-needed-to-treat with intensive antihypertensive drug therapy to prevent a first cardiovascular disease event on the basis of whether patients in the various BP categories were positive or negative for one or more biomarkers.
The results
Fifty-four percent of subjects had normal BP, defined in the guidelines as less than 120/80 mm Hg. Another 3% had BP in excess of 160/100 mm Hg. No controversy exists regarding pharmacotherapy in either of these groups: It’s not warranted in the former, essential in the latter.
Another 3,000 individuals had what the ACC/AHA guidelines define as elevated BP, meaning 120-129/<80 mm Hg, or low-risk stage 1 hypertension of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and a 10-year ASCVD risk score of less than 10%. Initiation of antihypertensive medication in these groups is not recommended in the guidelines. Yet 36% of these individuals had at least one positive cardiac biomarker. And here’s the eye-opening finding: Notably, the 10-year cardiovascular event incidence rate in this biomarker group not currently recommended for antihypertensive pharmacotherapy was 11%, more than double the 4.6% rate in the biomarker-negative group, which in turn was comparable to the 3.8% in the normal BP participants.
Antihypertensive therapy was recommended according to the guidelines in 20% of the total study population, comprising patients with stage 1 hypertension who had an ASCVD risk score of 10% or more as well as those with stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP greater than 140/90 mm Hg but less than 160/100 mm Hg. Forty-eight percent of these subjects were positive for at least one biomarker. Their cardiovascular incidence rate was 15.1%, compared to the 7.9% rate in biomarker-negative individuals.
The estimated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) with intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, as in SPRINT, to prevent one cardiovascular event in individuals not currently guideline-recommended for antihypertensive medications was 86 in those who were biomarker-negative. The NNT dropped to 36 in the biomarker-positive subgroup, a far more attractive figure that suggests a reasonable likelihood of benefit from intensive blood pressure control, in Dr. Pandey’s view.
Similarly, among individuals currently recommended for pharmacotherapy initiation, the NNTs were 49 if biomarker-negative, improving to 26 in those positive for one or both biomarkers, which was comparable to the NNT of 22 in the group with blood pressures greater than 160/100 mm Hg. The NNT of 49 in the biomarker-negative subgroup is in a borderline gray zone warranting individualized shared decision-making regarding pharmacotherapy, Dr. Pandey said.
In this study, an elevated hs-cTnT was defined as 6 ng/L or more, while an elevated NT-proBNP was considered to be at least 100 pg/mL.
“It’s noteworthy that the degree of elevation in hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP which were observed in our study were pretty subtle and much below the threshold used for diagnosis of ischemic events or heart failure. Thus, these elevations were largely representative of subtle chronic injury and not acute events,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member asked if the elevated biomarkers could simply be a surrogate for longer duration of exposure of the heart to high BP. Sure, Dr. Pandey replied, pointing to the 6-year greater average age of the biomarker-positive participants.
“It is likely that biomarker-positive status is capturing the culmination of longstanding exposure. But the thing about hypertension is there are no symptoms that can signal to the patient or the doctor that they have this disease, so testing for the biomarkers can actually capture the high-risk group that may have had hypertension for a long duration but now needs to be treated in order to prevent the advance of downstream adverse events,” he said.
Dr. Pandey reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Pandey A. AHA 2019 Abstract EP.AOS.521.141
PHILADELPHIA – Incorporation of cardiac biomarkers into current guideline-based decision-making regarding initiation of antihypertensive medication in patients with previously untreated mild or moderate high blood pressure leads to more appropriate and selective matching of intensive blood pressure control with true patient risk, Ambarish Pandey, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
That’s because the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA blood pressure guidelines recommend incorporating the ACC/AHA 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Calculator into decision making as to whether to start antihypertensive drug therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), but the risk calculator doesn’t account for the risk of heart failure.
Yet by far the greatest benefit of intensive BP lowering is in reducing the risk of developing heart failure, as demonstrated in the landmark SPRINT trial, which showed that intensive BP lowering achieved much greater risk reduction in new-onset heart failure than in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.
Thus, there’s a need for better strategies to guide antihypertensive therapy. And therein lies the rationale for incorporating into the risk assessment an individual’s values for N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), which reflects chronic myocardial stress, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which when elevated signals myocardial injury.
“Cardiac biomarkers are intermediate phenotypes from hypertension to future cardiovascular events. They can identify individuals at increased risk for atherosclerotic events, and at even higher risk for heart failure events,” explained Dr. Pandey, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
He presented a study of 12,987 participants in three major U.S. cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Dallas Heart Study. At baseline, none of the participants were on antihypertensive therapy or had known cardiovascular disease. During 10 years of prospective follow-up, 825 of them experienced a first cardiovascular disease event: 251 developed heart failure and 574 had an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Dr. Pandey and his coworkers calculated the cardiovascular event incidence rate and number-needed-to-treat with intensive antihypertensive drug therapy to prevent a first cardiovascular disease event on the basis of whether patients in the various BP categories were positive or negative for one or more biomarkers.
The results
Fifty-four percent of subjects had normal BP, defined in the guidelines as less than 120/80 mm Hg. Another 3% had BP in excess of 160/100 mm Hg. No controversy exists regarding pharmacotherapy in either of these groups: It’s not warranted in the former, essential in the latter.
Another 3,000 individuals had what the ACC/AHA guidelines define as elevated BP, meaning 120-129/<80 mm Hg, or low-risk stage 1 hypertension of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and a 10-year ASCVD risk score of less than 10%. Initiation of antihypertensive medication in these groups is not recommended in the guidelines. Yet 36% of these individuals had at least one positive cardiac biomarker. And here’s the eye-opening finding: Notably, the 10-year cardiovascular event incidence rate in this biomarker group not currently recommended for antihypertensive pharmacotherapy was 11%, more than double the 4.6% rate in the biomarker-negative group, which in turn was comparable to the 3.8% in the normal BP participants.
Antihypertensive therapy was recommended according to the guidelines in 20% of the total study population, comprising patients with stage 1 hypertension who had an ASCVD risk score of 10% or more as well as those with stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP greater than 140/90 mm Hg but less than 160/100 mm Hg. Forty-eight percent of these subjects were positive for at least one biomarker. Their cardiovascular incidence rate was 15.1%, compared to the 7.9% rate in biomarker-negative individuals.
The estimated number-needed-to-treat (NNT) with intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, as in SPRINT, to prevent one cardiovascular event in individuals not currently guideline-recommended for antihypertensive medications was 86 in those who were biomarker-negative. The NNT dropped to 36 in the biomarker-positive subgroup, a far more attractive figure that suggests a reasonable likelihood of benefit from intensive blood pressure control, in Dr. Pandey’s view.
Similarly, among individuals currently recommended for pharmacotherapy initiation, the NNTs were 49 if biomarker-negative, improving to 26 in those positive for one or both biomarkers, which was comparable to the NNT of 22 in the group with blood pressures greater than 160/100 mm Hg. The NNT of 49 in the biomarker-negative subgroup is in a borderline gray zone warranting individualized shared decision-making regarding pharmacotherapy, Dr. Pandey said.
In this study, an elevated hs-cTnT was defined as 6 ng/L or more, while an elevated NT-proBNP was considered to be at least 100 pg/mL.
“It’s noteworthy that the degree of elevation in hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP which were observed in our study were pretty subtle and much below the threshold used for diagnosis of ischemic events or heart failure. Thus, these elevations were largely representative of subtle chronic injury and not acute events,” according to the cardiologist.
One audience member asked if the elevated biomarkers could simply be a surrogate for longer duration of exposure of the heart to high BP. Sure, Dr. Pandey replied, pointing to the 6-year greater average age of the biomarker-positive participants.
“It is likely that biomarker-positive status is capturing the culmination of longstanding exposure. But the thing about hypertension is there are no symptoms that can signal to the patient or the doctor that they have this disease, so testing for the biomarkers can actually capture the high-risk group that may have had hypertension for a long duration but now needs to be treated in order to prevent the advance of downstream adverse events,” he said.
Dr. Pandey reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Pandey A. AHA 2019 Abstract EP.AOS.521.141
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Washington state patient is first U.S. case of novel coronavirus
The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.
The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.
More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.
Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.
The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.
Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.
The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.
Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.
The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.
The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.
More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.
Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.
The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.
Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.
The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.
Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.
The first case of the novel coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, in the United States has been diagnosed in a traveler from China who came through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Jan 15, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced today at a press briefing.
The outbreak began at a animal and meat market in China and now has spread to at least three other countries, including Thailand, Japan and South Korea. While originally thought to be spreading from animal to person, it appears that limited person-to-person transmission is occurring, although it is currently unknown how easily this virus spreads between people.
More than 300 cases have been reported and six deaths have occurred. Fourteen health care workers have been infected.
Scott Lindquist, MD, MPH, Washington state epidemiologist, said at the briefing that the patient, a man who had been in Wuhan, arrived at Sea-Tac on Jan. 15, 2 days before airport screening had been initiated. He was symptom free at the time of his arrival and probably would not have been identified as infected with 2019-nCoV. The patient had been aware of the public health and news media coverage of 2019-nCoV and, after developing symptoms, contacted his health care provider on Jan. 19. The patient did not fly directly from Wuhan, but Dr. Lindquist said that he has been fully cooperative and has been helpful to authorities in tracing his route and contacts. The man is being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center, Everett, Wash.
The CDC obtained a specimen from the patient immediately and identified the 2019-nCoV within 24 hours.
Screening at airports is part of a multipart strategy to address this type of infection that includes public health information dissemination, patient education, as well as hospital preparation and training exercises. Currently, a strategy referred to as “funneling” is being implemented wherein travelers from China are rerouted and reticketed to one of the five airports conducting screening. At present, JFK in New York, San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport are conducting inbound traveler screening.
The CDC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration to coordinate travel screenings and reroutings. In addition, the CDC is working with the World Health Organization and the international global health community to share information about this outbreak. The CDC also has staff on site in Wuhan and is communicating with local health authorities. The CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center to better provide ongoing support to the 2019-nCoV response. Currently, the focus is on tracing contacts and the means of transmission of this virus.
Updates on the outbreak will be posted on the CDC coronavirus website.
CORRECTION: 1/21/2020: The name of the medical center where the 2019-nCoV patient is being treated was corrected.
REPORTING FROM CDC