Clinical Endocrinology News

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new multicenter trial has yielded conflicting results regarding intranasal insulin’s ability to deliver cognitive and functional benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease. The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.

“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.

“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”

Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.

Important for brain function

Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.

“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.

In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”

Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.

As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.

Deeper dive

In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.

Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.

In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.

Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.

Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.

Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.

Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.

Better cognitive performance

A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.

The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.

Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.

In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).

Device type critical

These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.

The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.

“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.

The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Not a failure

Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”

For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.

“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

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

A new multicenter trial has yielded conflicting results regarding intranasal insulin’s ability to deliver cognitive and functional benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease. The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.

“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.

“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”

Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.

Important for brain function

Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.

“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.

In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”

Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.

As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.

Deeper dive

In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.

Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.

In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.

Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.

Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.

Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.

Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.

Better cognitive performance

A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.

The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.

Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.

In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).

Device type critical

These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.

The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.

“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.

The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Not a failure

Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”

For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.

“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

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

A new multicenter trial has yielded conflicting results regarding intranasal insulin’s ability to deliver cognitive and functional benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease. The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.

“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.

“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”

Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.

Important for brain function

Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.

“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.

In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”

Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.

As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.

Deeper dive

In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.

Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.

In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.

Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.

Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.

Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.

Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.

Better cognitive performance

A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.

The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.

Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.

In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).

Device type critical

These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.

The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.

“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.

The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Not a failure

Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”

For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.

“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

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

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

In 2015, I proposed virtual care for the division of adolescent medicine, to the administration of our Midwestern children and adolescent hospital; they gladly listened and accepted a copy of the resources I provided. Virtual care was acknowledged to be the future direction of our and other organizations.

AJ_Watt/E+

Four years later, virtual visits were introduced in the pediatric urgent care, but with little usability as families were slow to adopt this new form of medicine. Fast forward to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020, and virtual medicine was the only option to meet the needs of patients and to stop the economic consequences. Unfortunately, the expedited rollout at our and many other hospitals may have resulted in limited program development and a lack of shared best practices.

Since March 2020, both patients and medical providers have accepted virtual care, but we now have an opportunity to review some of the limitations to offering virtual care. Work in primary care centers may see limitations using virtual medicine to meet the needs of all patients. Take into consideration the ability to offer confidential care. Confidential care has been a challenge virtually. For example, while completing a virtual visit with a 19-year-old female, it was apparent she was not alone and when asked a benign question the commotion in the background told the real story. The young woman began to laugh and said, “That was my dad running out of the room.” Despite requesting that parents leave the call, they can be heard within earshot of the caller.

Innovation is essential, and televisits are evolving, using tools such as sticky notes embedded in the computer (virtual note cards to ask confidential questions). On a televisit, written words appear backwards on the video, requiring written questions to be mirror images. When asking questions meant to be confidential, we have used note cards with a question mark. Verbal directions asking the adolescent to give a thumbs up or down to answer the question are required to maintain privacy from others in the room. If the patient responds thumbs up, this leads to additional questions with note cards. Although not ideal, this process gets to the answers, and the adolescent can disclose confidential information without concern about being overheard. Child abuse and neglect professionals have found similar challenges talking to caregivers or children as they are uncertain if others in the home are out of the screen but listening to the questions or prompting responses.

Obtaining vitals may be restricted and picking up hypertension or changes in weight has been limited to face to face visits. To continue to provide virtual care will require screening stations. I foresee a kiosk at the grocery or drugstore with a computer and the ability to obtain vitals or portions of an exam such as heart and lung evaluations. Patients could go at their convenience and the results could be sent to their providers. Technology already exists to use a cell phone to take photos of a toddler’s sore ear drum, and to obtain basic pulse oximetry and ECG, but these have a cost and may be available only to those able to afford these tools.

Billing issues have developed when patients go to a lab on the same day as a virtual visit. Completing a virtual visit for a sore throat thought to be streptococcal pharyngitis should not be finalized without access to a streptococcal throat swab. Until families have home kits to evaluate for strep throat, the families must bring the patient to a clinic or lab to obtain a pharyngeal culture. Furthermore, insurance reimbursement standards will need to be set for ongoing virtual health to become a sustainable option.

Workflows have been disrupted by balancing face to face visits with virtual visits. Unless the virtual visit has been set up for the medical team to access immediately, there are delays accessing the virtual platform, resulting in unnecessary gaps in care. Arranging schedules to separate face to face visits from virtual visits offers more efficiency. Creating a block of virtual visits separated from face-to-face visits or assigning providers to virtual-only schedules may be the best option for an efficient clinic flow. Telemedicine visit templates may need to be created as virtual visits become standard practice.

At present, virtual visits can only be offered to English-speaking patients. The inability to offer translators limits access to a small number of patients. Given COVID-19’s impact on the underserved communities, having a safe resource to reach these patients has been limited, leaving face-to-face visits as their only option. Requiring a face-to-face visit during peak illness has placed patients at risk. They have refused health care as opposed to exposure to the illness in health care settings.

We have innovative opportunities to create a new health care system. Despite the initial struggles with the adoption of virtual care, patients and providers have begun embracing the technology. Best practices and shared resources will be required to have a successful system before brick and mortar organizations can be reduced or insurance companies create their own health care systems which can branch across state lines.
 

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The article was updated 7/17/2020.

In 2015, I proposed virtual care for the division of adolescent medicine, to the administration of our Midwestern children and adolescent hospital; they gladly listened and accepted a copy of the resources I provided. Virtual care was acknowledged to be the future direction of our and other organizations.

AJ_Watt/E+

Four years later, virtual visits were introduced in the pediatric urgent care, but with little usability as families were slow to adopt this new form of medicine. Fast forward to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020, and virtual medicine was the only option to meet the needs of patients and to stop the economic consequences. Unfortunately, the expedited rollout at our and many other hospitals may have resulted in limited program development and a lack of shared best practices.

Since March 2020, both patients and medical providers have accepted virtual care, but we now have an opportunity to review some of the limitations to offering virtual care. Work in primary care centers may see limitations using virtual medicine to meet the needs of all patients. Take into consideration the ability to offer confidential care. Confidential care has been a challenge virtually. For example, while completing a virtual visit with a 19-year-old female, it was apparent she was not alone and when asked a benign question the commotion in the background told the real story. The young woman began to laugh and said, “That was my dad running out of the room.” Despite requesting that parents leave the call, they can be heard within earshot of the caller.

Innovation is essential, and televisits are evolving, using tools such as sticky notes embedded in the computer (virtual note cards to ask confidential questions). On a televisit, written words appear backwards on the video, requiring written questions to be mirror images. When asking questions meant to be confidential, we have used note cards with a question mark. Verbal directions asking the adolescent to give a thumbs up or down to answer the question are required to maintain privacy from others in the room. If the patient responds thumbs up, this leads to additional questions with note cards. Although not ideal, this process gets to the answers, and the adolescent can disclose confidential information without concern about being overheard. Child abuse and neglect professionals have found similar challenges talking to caregivers or children as they are uncertain if others in the home are out of the screen but listening to the questions or prompting responses.

Obtaining vitals may be restricted and picking up hypertension or changes in weight has been limited to face to face visits. To continue to provide virtual care will require screening stations. I foresee a kiosk at the grocery or drugstore with a computer and the ability to obtain vitals or portions of an exam such as heart and lung evaluations. Patients could go at their convenience and the results could be sent to their providers. Technology already exists to use a cell phone to take photos of a toddler’s sore ear drum, and to obtain basic pulse oximetry and ECG, but these have a cost and may be available only to those able to afford these tools.

Billing issues have developed when patients go to a lab on the same day as a virtual visit. Completing a virtual visit for a sore throat thought to be streptococcal pharyngitis should not be finalized without access to a streptococcal throat swab. Until families have home kits to evaluate for strep throat, the families must bring the patient to a clinic or lab to obtain a pharyngeal culture. Furthermore, insurance reimbursement standards will need to be set for ongoing virtual health to become a sustainable option.

Workflows have been disrupted by balancing face to face visits with virtual visits. Unless the virtual visit has been set up for the medical team to access immediately, there are delays accessing the virtual platform, resulting in unnecessary gaps in care. Arranging schedules to separate face to face visits from virtual visits offers more efficiency. Creating a block of virtual visits separated from face-to-face visits or assigning providers to virtual-only schedules may be the best option for an efficient clinic flow. Telemedicine visit templates may need to be created as virtual visits become standard practice.

At present, virtual visits can only be offered to English-speaking patients. The inability to offer translators limits access to a small number of patients. Given COVID-19’s impact on the underserved communities, having a safe resource to reach these patients has been limited, leaving face-to-face visits as their only option. Requiring a face-to-face visit during peak illness has placed patients at risk. They have refused health care as opposed to exposure to the illness in health care settings.

We have innovative opportunities to create a new health care system. Despite the initial struggles with the adoption of virtual care, patients and providers have begun embracing the technology. Best practices and shared resources will be required to have a successful system before brick and mortar organizations can be reduced or insurance companies create their own health care systems which can branch across state lines.
 

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The article was updated 7/17/2020.

In 2015, I proposed virtual care for the division of adolescent medicine, to the administration of our Midwestern children and adolescent hospital; they gladly listened and accepted a copy of the resources I provided. Virtual care was acknowledged to be the future direction of our and other organizations.

AJ_Watt/E+

Four years later, virtual visits were introduced in the pediatric urgent care, but with little usability as families were slow to adopt this new form of medicine. Fast forward to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020, and virtual medicine was the only option to meet the needs of patients and to stop the economic consequences. Unfortunately, the expedited rollout at our and many other hospitals may have resulted in limited program development and a lack of shared best practices.

Since March 2020, both patients and medical providers have accepted virtual care, but we now have an opportunity to review some of the limitations to offering virtual care. Work in primary care centers may see limitations using virtual medicine to meet the needs of all patients. Take into consideration the ability to offer confidential care. Confidential care has been a challenge virtually. For example, while completing a virtual visit with a 19-year-old female, it was apparent she was not alone and when asked a benign question the commotion in the background told the real story. The young woman began to laugh and said, “That was my dad running out of the room.” Despite requesting that parents leave the call, they can be heard within earshot of the caller.

Innovation is essential, and televisits are evolving, using tools such as sticky notes embedded in the computer (virtual note cards to ask confidential questions). On a televisit, written words appear backwards on the video, requiring written questions to be mirror images. When asking questions meant to be confidential, we have used note cards with a question mark. Verbal directions asking the adolescent to give a thumbs up or down to answer the question are required to maintain privacy from others in the room. If the patient responds thumbs up, this leads to additional questions with note cards. Although not ideal, this process gets to the answers, and the adolescent can disclose confidential information without concern about being overheard. Child abuse and neglect professionals have found similar challenges talking to caregivers or children as they are uncertain if others in the home are out of the screen but listening to the questions or prompting responses.

Obtaining vitals may be restricted and picking up hypertension or changes in weight has been limited to face to face visits. To continue to provide virtual care will require screening stations. I foresee a kiosk at the grocery or drugstore with a computer and the ability to obtain vitals or portions of an exam such as heart and lung evaluations. Patients could go at their convenience and the results could be sent to their providers. Technology already exists to use a cell phone to take photos of a toddler’s sore ear drum, and to obtain basic pulse oximetry and ECG, but these have a cost and may be available only to those able to afford these tools.

Billing issues have developed when patients go to a lab on the same day as a virtual visit. Completing a virtual visit for a sore throat thought to be streptococcal pharyngitis should not be finalized without access to a streptococcal throat swab. Until families have home kits to evaluate for strep throat, the families must bring the patient to a clinic or lab to obtain a pharyngeal culture. Furthermore, insurance reimbursement standards will need to be set for ongoing virtual health to become a sustainable option.

Workflows have been disrupted by balancing face to face visits with virtual visits. Unless the virtual visit has been set up for the medical team to access immediately, there are delays accessing the virtual platform, resulting in unnecessary gaps in care. Arranging schedules to separate face to face visits from virtual visits offers more efficiency. Creating a block of virtual visits separated from face-to-face visits or assigning providers to virtual-only schedules may be the best option for an efficient clinic flow. Telemedicine visit templates may need to be created as virtual visits become standard practice.

At present, virtual visits can only be offered to English-speaking patients. The inability to offer translators limits access to a small number of patients. Given COVID-19’s impact on the underserved communities, having a safe resource to reach these patients has been limited, leaving face-to-face visits as their only option. Requiring a face-to-face visit during peak illness has placed patients at risk. They have refused health care as opposed to exposure to the illness in health care settings.

We have innovative opportunities to create a new health care system. Despite the initial struggles with the adoption of virtual care, patients and providers have begun embracing the technology. Best practices and shared resources will be required to have a successful system before brick and mortar organizations can be reduced or insurance companies create their own health care systems which can branch across state lines.
 

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The article was updated 7/17/2020.

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A sense of safety and stability, both emotional and physical, is crucial in promoting the healthy development of youth. Between the global pandemic, need for social distancing, economic downturn, and increased awareness of racial disparities, for many this sense of stability has been rattled.

Ryan McVay/ThinkStock

School closures have led to a loss of social interaction, challenges to continued academic growth, and, for some students, lack of access to nutrition and increased food insecurity. For students with learning or mental health challenges, closures may have eliminated or significantly reduced desperately needed supports received in school.¹ While these trying circumstances have been difficult for many, the transition back to school in the fall also may be challenging because of the uncertainty about what this will look like and possible change in routine. Some students or their families may have anxiety about returning, either because of a history of adverse experiences at school such as bullying, or because of fears about exposure for themselves or others to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

The past several months also brought about greater awareness of systemic racial disparities, whether as reflected in health care, education, or the criminal justice system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Latinx and African-American individuals in the United States have had a threefold greater chance of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have a twofold greater risk of death, compared with white people in the same communities.² Other social determinants of health – economic stability, education, social factors such as incarceration and discrimination, and neighborhood factors including access to healthy food – play a role in this vulnerability.

The pandemic has resulted in a need for social distancing, and as a result, isolation. Children and teens exposed to the news may have anxiety about what they see or hear. Additional pressures in the family can include economic uncertainty, loss of employment for the primary wage earner of the household, or stress related to family members being first responders.

Any one of these factors is a potentially significant stressor, so how do we best support youth to help them survive and hopefully thrive during this time?
 

• It is important to establish a sense of routine; this can help create a sense of stability and safety. Recognizing that circumstances are not the same as they were 5 or 6 months ago, encouraging structure should not come at the cost of preserving connection.
• Note positive behavior and choices made by children and make sure they know it was observed.
• Many children have experienced increased screen time with the lack of structure of the traditional school day or summer camp and extracurricular activities. Limiting screen time and being mindful of its potential impact on mood is prudent.
• Self-care for parents and guardians is important. This is clearly a marathon and not a sprint; parents’ caring for themselves will place them in a better position to support their children. This time is stressful for the adults of the household, let alone children who are learning self-regulation skills.
• Listen to children’s or teens’ concerns and share information in developmentally appropriate ways. It is okay to not have all of the answers.
• Balance fostering a sense of gratitude with not invalidating a child’s or teen’s experience. Showing empathy during this time is vital. While there may be other soccer seasons, it is normal to experience grief about the loss of experiences during this time.
• Parents and guardians know their children best, so it is prudent for them to be mindful of concerning changes such as an increase in sadness, anxiety, or irritability that negatively impacts daily functioning such as sleeping, eating, or relationships with family and friends.
• Promote social interactions with appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is increasing in multiple states, and there is the potential to return to some of the previous restrictions. However, encouraging social interaction while following local guidelines and with cautions such as limiting the number of people present, meeting outside, or considering interacting with others who are similarly social distancing can help foster social connection and development.
• Maintain connection digitally when in-person contact is not an option.³ Social groups, places of worship, and other activities have been agile in developing virtual communities. Communication by voice and/or video is thought to be more powerful than by written communication (text, email) alone.⁴ However, it is important to consider those who may have limited to no access to electronic methods.
• Encourage open communication with children about diversity and bias, and consider how our interactions with others may affect our children’s perspectives.⁵
• As providers, it is crucial that we address structural and institutional systems that negatively impact the health, safety, and access to care including our Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and allied/asexual/aromantic/agender (LGBTQIA) patients.

Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. Dr. Strange has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Online resources for parents and families

• Child Mind Institute: Coping With the Coronavirus Crisis: Supporting Your Kids.
• American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
• Common Sense Media: Help with determining appropriateness of media for children.

Hotlines

• National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
• GLBT National Hotline: 888-843-4564
• The California Peer-Run Warm Line: 1-855-845-7415
• Trevor Project: 866-488-7386 or text TREVOR to 1-202-304-1200
• Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
• Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741

References

1. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456.

2. CDC: COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.

3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4469.

4. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.

5. American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.

A sense of safety and stability, both emotional and physical, is crucial in promoting the healthy development of youth. Between the global pandemic, need for social distancing, economic downturn, and increased awareness of racial disparities, for many this sense of stability has been rattled.

Ryan McVay/ThinkStock

School closures have led to a loss of social interaction, challenges to continued academic growth, and, for some students, lack of access to nutrition and increased food insecurity. For students with learning or mental health challenges, closures may have eliminated or significantly reduced desperately needed supports received in school.¹ While these trying circumstances have been difficult for many, the transition back to school in the fall also may be challenging because of the uncertainty about what this will look like and possible change in routine. Some students or their families may have anxiety about returning, either because of a history of adverse experiences at school such as bullying, or because of fears about exposure for themselves or others to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

The past several months also brought about greater awareness of systemic racial disparities, whether as reflected in health care, education, or the criminal justice system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Latinx and African-American individuals in the United States have had a threefold greater chance of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have a twofold greater risk of death, compared with white people in the same communities.² Other social determinants of health – economic stability, education, social factors such as incarceration and discrimination, and neighborhood factors including access to healthy food – play a role in this vulnerability.

The pandemic has resulted in a need for social distancing, and as a result, isolation. Children and teens exposed to the news may have anxiety about what they see or hear. Additional pressures in the family can include economic uncertainty, loss of employment for the primary wage earner of the household, or stress related to family members being first responders.

Any one of these factors is a potentially significant stressor, so how do we best support youth to help them survive and hopefully thrive during this time?
 

• It is important to establish a sense of routine; this can help create a sense of stability and safety. Recognizing that circumstances are not the same as they were 5 or 6 months ago, encouraging structure should not come at the cost of preserving connection.
• Note positive behavior and choices made by children and make sure they know it was observed.
• Many children have experienced increased screen time with the lack of structure of the traditional school day or summer camp and extracurricular activities. Limiting screen time and being mindful of its potential impact on mood is prudent.
• Self-care for parents and guardians is important. This is clearly a marathon and not a sprint; parents’ caring for themselves will place them in a better position to support their children. This time is stressful for the adults of the household, let alone children who are learning self-regulation skills.
• Listen to children’s or teens’ concerns and share information in developmentally appropriate ways. It is okay to not have all of the answers.
• Balance fostering a sense of gratitude with not invalidating a child’s or teen’s experience. Showing empathy during this time is vital. While there may be other soccer seasons, it is normal to experience grief about the loss of experiences during this time.
• Parents and guardians know their children best, so it is prudent for them to be mindful of concerning changes such as an increase in sadness, anxiety, or irritability that negatively impacts daily functioning such as sleeping, eating, or relationships with family and friends.
• Promote social interactions with appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is increasing in multiple states, and there is the potential to return to some of the previous restrictions. However, encouraging social interaction while following local guidelines and with cautions such as limiting the number of people present, meeting outside, or considering interacting with others who are similarly social distancing can help foster social connection and development.
• Maintain connection digitally when in-person contact is not an option.³ Social groups, places of worship, and other activities have been agile in developing virtual communities. Communication by voice and/or video is thought to be more powerful than by written communication (text, email) alone.⁴ However, it is important to consider those who may have limited to no access to electronic methods.
• Encourage open communication with children about diversity and bias, and consider how our interactions with others may affect our children’s perspectives.⁵
• As providers, it is crucial that we address structural and institutional systems that negatively impact the health, safety, and access to care including our Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and allied/asexual/aromantic/agender (LGBTQIA) patients.

Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. Dr. Strange has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Online resources for parents and families

• Child Mind Institute: Coping With the Coronavirus Crisis: Supporting Your Kids.
• American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
• Common Sense Media: Help with determining appropriateness of media for children.

Hotlines

• National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
• GLBT National Hotline: 888-843-4564
• The California Peer-Run Warm Line: 1-855-845-7415
• Trevor Project: 866-488-7386 or text TREVOR to 1-202-304-1200
• Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
• Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741

References

1. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456.

2. CDC: COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.

3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4469.

4. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.

5. American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.

A sense of safety and stability, both emotional and physical, is crucial in promoting the healthy development of youth. Between the global pandemic, need for social distancing, economic downturn, and increased awareness of racial disparities, for many this sense of stability has been rattled.

Ryan McVay/ThinkStock

School closures have led to a loss of social interaction, challenges to continued academic growth, and, for some students, lack of access to nutrition and increased food insecurity. For students with learning or mental health challenges, closures may have eliminated or significantly reduced desperately needed supports received in school.¹ While these trying circumstances have been difficult for many, the transition back to school in the fall also may be challenging because of the uncertainty about what this will look like and possible change in routine. Some students or their families may have anxiety about returning, either because of a history of adverse experiences at school such as bullying, or because of fears about exposure for themselves or others to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

The past several months also brought about greater awareness of systemic racial disparities, whether as reflected in health care, education, or the criminal justice system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Latinx and African-American individuals in the United States have had a threefold greater chance of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have a twofold greater risk of death, compared with white people in the same communities.² Other social determinants of health – economic stability, education, social factors such as incarceration and discrimination, and neighborhood factors including access to healthy food – play a role in this vulnerability.

The pandemic has resulted in a need for social distancing, and as a result, isolation. Children and teens exposed to the news may have anxiety about what they see or hear. Additional pressures in the family can include economic uncertainty, loss of employment for the primary wage earner of the household, or stress related to family members being first responders.

Any one of these factors is a potentially significant stressor, so how do we best support youth to help them survive and hopefully thrive during this time?
 

• It is important to establish a sense of routine; this can help create a sense of stability and safety. Recognizing that circumstances are not the same as they were 5 or 6 months ago, encouraging structure should not come at the cost of preserving connection.
• Note positive behavior and choices made by children and make sure they know it was observed.
• Many children have experienced increased screen time with the lack of structure of the traditional school day or summer camp and extracurricular activities. Limiting screen time and being mindful of its potential impact on mood is prudent.
• Self-care for parents and guardians is important. This is clearly a marathon and not a sprint; parents’ caring for themselves will place them in a better position to support their children. This time is stressful for the adults of the household, let alone children who are learning self-regulation skills.
• Listen to children’s or teens’ concerns and share information in developmentally appropriate ways. It is okay to not have all of the answers.
• Balance fostering a sense of gratitude with not invalidating a child’s or teen’s experience. Showing empathy during this time is vital. While there may be other soccer seasons, it is normal to experience grief about the loss of experiences during this time.
• Parents and guardians know their children best, so it is prudent for them to be mindful of concerning changes such as an increase in sadness, anxiety, or irritability that negatively impacts daily functioning such as sleeping, eating, or relationships with family and friends.
• Promote social interactions with appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is increasing in multiple states, and there is the potential to return to some of the previous restrictions. However, encouraging social interaction while following local guidelines and with cautions such as limiting the number of people present, meeting outside, or considering interacting with others who are similarly social distancing can help foster social connection and development.
• Maintain connection digitally when in-person contact is not an option.³ Social groups, places of worship, and other activities have been agile in developing virtual communities. Communication by voice and/or video is thought to be more powerful than by written communication (text, email) alone.⁴ However, it is important to consider those who may have limited to no access to electronic methods.
• Encourage open communication with children about diversity and bias, and consider how our interactions with others may affect our children’s perspectives.⁵
• As providers, it is crucial that we address structural and institutional systems that negatively impact the health, safety, and access to care including our Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and allied/asexual/aromantic/agender (LGBTQIA) patients.

Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. Dr. Strange has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Online resources for parents and families

• Child Mind Institute: Coping With the Coronavirus Crisis: Supporting Your Kids.
• American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
• Common Sense Media: Help with determining appropriateness of media for children.

Hotlines

• National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
• GLBT National Hotline: 888-843-4564
• The California Peer-Run Warm Line: 1-855-845-7415
• Trevor Project: 866-488-7386 or text TREVOR to 1-202-304-1200
• Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
• Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741

References

1. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456.

2. CDC: COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.

3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4469.

4. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.

5. American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.

Starting July 1, 2021, residents and fellows will be allowed a minimum 6 weeks away for medical leave or caregiving once during training, without having to use vacation or sick leave and without having to extend their training, the American Board of Medical Specialties has announced.

The “ABMS Policy on Parental, Caregiver and Family Leave” announced July 13 was developed after a report from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s Council of Review Committee Residents in June 2019.

Richard E. Hawkins, MD, ABMS President and CEO, said in a statement that “the growing shifts in viewpoints regarding work-life balance and parental roles had a great influence in the creation of this policy, which fosters an environment that supports our trainees’ ability to care not only for patients, but also for themselves and their families.”

Specifically, the time can be taken for birth and care of a newborn, adopting a child, or becoming a foster parent; care of a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health condition; or the trainee’s own serious health condition. The policy applies to member boards with training programs of at least 2 years.

Boards must communicate when a leave will require an official extension to avoid disruptions to a physician’s career trajectory, a delay in starting a fellowship, or moving into a salaried position.

Work/life balance was by far the biggest challenge reported in the Medscape Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2019.

Several member boards had already implemented policies that offered more flexibility without unduly delaying board certification; now ABMS is extending that to all boards.

ABMS says member boards may limit the maximum time away in a single year or level of training and directed member boards to “make reasonable testing accommodations” – for example, by allowing candidates to take an exam provided the candidate completes all training requirements by a certain date.

Kristy Rialon, MD, an author of the ACGME report and assistant professor of surgery at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, noted the significance of the change in a news release.

“By virtue of their ages, residents and fellows – male and female – often find themselves having and raising children, as well as serving as family members’ caregivers,” Dr. Rialon said. “By adopting more realistic and compassionate approaches, the ABMS member boards will significantly improve the quality of life for residents and fellows. This also will support our female physicians, helping to narrow the gender gap in their career advancement by allowing for greater leave flexibility.”

A Medscape survey published July 15 said work-life balance was the No. 1 concern of female physicians, far outpacing pay.

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

Starting July 1, 2021, residents and fellows will be allowed a minimum 6 weeks away for medical leave or caregiving once during training, without having to use vacation or sick leave and without having to extend their training, the American Board of Medical Specialties has announced.

The “ABMS Policy on Parental, Caregiver and Family Leave” announced July 13 was developed after a report from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s Council of Review Committee Residents in June 2019.

Richard E. Hawkins, MD, ABMS President and CEO, said in a statement that “the growing shifts in viewpoints regarding work-life balance and parental roles had a great influence in the creation of this policy, which fosters an environment that supports our trainees’ ability to care not only for patients, but also for themselves and their families.”

Specifically, the time can be taken for birth and care of a newborn, adopting a child, or becoming a foster parent; care of a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health condition; or the trainee’s own serious health condition. The policy applies to member boards with training programs of at least 2 years.

Boards must communicate when a leave will require an official extension to avoid disruptions to a physician’s career trajectory, a delay in starting a fellowship, or moving into a salaried position.

Work/life balance was by far the biggest challenge reported in the Medscape Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2019.

Several member boards had already implemented policies that offered more flexibility without unduly delaying board certification; now ABMS is extending that to all boards.

ABMS says member boards may limit the maximum time away in a single year or level of training and directed member boards to “make reasonable testing accommodations” – for example, by allowing candidates to take an exam provided the candidate completes all training requirements by a certain date.

Kristy Rialon, MD, an author of the ACGME report and assistant professor of surgery at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, noted the significance of the change in a news release.

“By virtue of their ages, residents and fellows – male and female – often find themselves having and raising children, as well as serving as family members’ caregivers,” Dr. Rialon said. “By adopting more realistic and compassionate approaches, the ABMS member boards will significantly improve the quality of life for residents and fellows. This also will support our female physicians, helping to narrow the gender gap in their career advancement by allowing for greater leave flexibility.”

A Medscape survey published July 15 said work-life balance was the No. 1 concern of female physicians, far outpacing pay.

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

Starting July 1, 2021, residents and fellows will be allowed a minimum 6 weeks away for medical leave or caregiving once during training, without having to use vacation or sick leave and without having to extend their training, the American Board of Medical Specialties has announced.

The “ABMS Policy on Parental, Caregiver and Family Leave” announced July 13 was developed after a report from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s Council of Review Committee Residents in June 2019.

Richard E. Hawkins, MD, ABMS President and CEO, said in a statement that “the growing shifts in viewpoints regarding work-life balance and parental roles had a great influence in the creation of this policy, which fosters an environment that supports our trainees’ ability to care not only for patients, but also for themselves and their families.”

Specifically, the time can be taken for birth and care of a newborn, adopting a child, or becoming a foster parent; care of a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health condition; or the trainee’s own serious health condition. The policy applies to member boards with training programs of at least 2 years.

Boards must communicate when a leave will require an official extension to avoid disruptions to a physician’s career trajectory, a delay in starting a fellowship, or moving into a salaried position.

Work/life balance was by far the biggest challenge reported in the Medscape Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2019.

Several member boards had already implemented policies that offered more flexibility without unduly delaying board certification; now ABMS is extending that to all boards.

ABMS says member boards may limit the maximum time away in a single year or level of training and directed member boards to “make reasonable testing accommodations” – for example, by allowing candidates to take an exam provided the candidate completes all training requirements by a certain date.

Kristy Rialon, MD, an author of the ACGME report and assistant professor of surgery at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, noted the significance of the change in a news release.

“By virtue of their ages, residents and fellows – male and female – often find themselves having and raising children, as well as serving as family members’ caregivers,” Dr. Rialon said. “By adopting more realistic and compassionate approaches, the ABMS member boards will significantly improve the quality of life for residents and fellows. This also will support our female physicians, helping to narrow the gender gap in their career advancement by allowing for greater leave flexibility.”

A Medscape survey published July 15 said work-life balance was the No. 1 concern of female physicians, far outpacing pay.

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

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.