Clinical Endocrinology News

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two studies published this week in BMJ provide support for eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grain foods to lower the risk of developing diabetes.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In a pooled analysis of three large prospective American cohorts, people with the highest versus lowest total consumption of whole grain foods had a significantly lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

“These findings provide further support for the current recommendations of increasing whole grain consumption as part of a healthy diet for the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” wrote the authors led by Yang Hu, a doctoral student at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Similarly, in a large European case-cohort study, people with higher values for plasma vitamin C and carotenoids (fruit and vegetable intake) had a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.

“This study suggests that even a modest increase in fruit and vegetable intake could help to prevent type 2 diabetes ... regardless of whether the increase is among people with initially low or high intake,” wrote Ju-Sheng Zheng, PhD, University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues.
 

Individual whole grain foods

Previous studies have shown that high consumption of whole grains is associated with a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and some types of cancer, Mr. Hu and colleagues wrote.

Although research has shown that whole grain breakfast cereal and brown rice are linked with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, the effect of other commonly consumed whole grain foods – which contain different amounts of dietary fiber, antioxidants, magnesium, and phytochemicals – has not been established.

Mr. Hu and colleagues analyzed pooled data from 158,259 U.S. women who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014) or the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2017) and 36,525 U.S. men who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016), who were free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Participants’ baseline consumption of seven types of whole grain foods – whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, dark bread, brown rice, added bran, wheat germ, and popcorn – was based on self-replies to food frequency questionnaires.

During an average 24-year follow-up, 18,629 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

After adjusting for body mass index, lifestyle, and dietary risk factors, participants in the highest quintile of total whole grain consumption had a 29% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quintile.

The most commonly consumed whole grain foods were whole grain cold breakfast cereal, dark bread, and popcorn.

Compared with eating less than one serving a month of whole grain cold breakfast cereal or dark bread, eating one or more servings a day was associated with a 19% and 21% lower risk of developing diabetes, respectively.

For popcorn, a J-shaped association was found for intake, where the risk of type 2 diabetes was not significantly raised until consumption exceeded about one serving a day, which led to about an 8% increased risk of developing diabetes – likely related to fat and sugar added to the popcorn, the researchers wrote.

For the less frequently consumed whole grain foods, compared with eating less than one serving a month of oatmeal, brown rice, added bran, or wheat germ, participants who ate two or more servings a week had a 21%, 12%, 15%, and 12% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Lean or overweight individuals had a greater decreased risk of diabetes with increased consumption of whole grain foods; however, because individuals with obesity have a higher risk of diabetes, even a small decrease in risk is still meaningful.

Limitations include the study was observational and may have had unknown confounders, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations, the authors note.
 

‘Five a day’ fruits and vegetables

Only one previous small published study from the United Kingdom has examined how blood levels of vitamin C and carotenoids are associated with incident type 2 diabetes, Dr. Zheng and colleagues wrote.

They investigated the relationship in 9,754 adults who developed new-onset type 2 diabetes and a comparison group of 13,662 adults who remained diabetes free during an average 9.7-year follow-up, from 340,234 participants in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition–InterAct study.

Participants were from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and incident type 2 diabetes occurred between 1991 and 2007.

The researchers used high-performance liquid chromatography–ultraviolet methods to determine participants’ plasma levels of vitamin C and six carotenoids (alphta-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, beta-cryptoxanthin), which they used to calculate a composite biomarker score.

The recommendation to eat at least five fruits and vegetables a day corresponds to eating ≥400 g/day, according to Dr. Zheng and colleagues. The self-reported median fruit and vegetable intake in the current study was 274, 357, 396, 452, and 508 g/day from lowest to highest quintile.

After multivariable adjustment, higher levels of plasma vitamin C and carotenoids were associated with an 18% and 25% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes per standard deviation, respectively.

Compared with patients whose vitamin C and carotenoid composite biomarker scores were in the lowest 20%, those with scores in the top 20% had half the risk of incident diabetes. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by 66 g/day was associated with a 25% lower risk of developing diabetes.

“These findings provide strong evidence from objectively measured biomarkers for the recommendation that fruit and vegetable intake should be increased to prevent type 2 diabetes,” according to the researchers.

However, consumption of fruits and vegetables remains far below guideline recommendations, they observed. “Although five portions a day of fruit and vegetables have been recommended for decades, in 2014-2015, 69% of U.K. adults ate fewer than this number, and this proportion is even higher in European adults (86%).”

Dr. Zheng and colleagues acknowledged that study limitations include those that are inherent with observational studies.

Although they could not distinguish between juice, fortified products, or whole foods, the analyses “were adjusted for vitamin supplement use, and suggest that as biomarkers of fruit and vegetable intake these findings endorse the consumption of fruit and vegetables, not that of supplements,” they maintained.

The study by Mr. Hu and colleagues was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The InterAct project was funded by the EU FP6 program. Biomarker measurements for vitamin C and carotenoids were funded by the InterAct project, EPIC-CVD project, MRC Cambridge Initiative, European Commission Framework Program 7, European Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Zheng has reported receiving funding from Westlake University and the EU Horizon 2020 program.

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

Two studies published this week in BMJ provide support for eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grain foods to lower the risk of developing diabetes.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In a pooled analysis of three large prospective American cohorts, people with the highest versus lowest total consumption of whole grain foods had a significantly lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

“These findings provide further support for the current recommendations of increasing whole grain consumption as part of a healthy diet for the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” wrote the authors led by Yang Hu, a doctoral student at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Similarly, in a large European case-cohort study, people with higher values for plasma vitamin C and carotenoids (fruit and vegetable intake) had a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.

“This study suggests that even a modest increase in fruit and vegetable intake could help to prevent type 2 diabetes ... regardless of whether the increase is among people with initially low or high intake,” wrote Ju-Sheng Zheng, PhD, University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues.
 

Individual whole grain foods

Previous studies have shown that high consumption of whole grains is associated with a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and some types of cancer, Mr. Hu and colleagues wrote.

Although research has shown that whole grain breakfast cereal and brown rice are linked with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, the effect of other commonly consumed whole grain foods – which contain different amounts of dietary fiber, antioxidants, magnesium, and phytochemicals – has not been established.

Mr. Hu and colleagues analyzed pooled data from 158,259 U.S. women who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014) or the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2017) and 36,525 U.S. men who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016), who were free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Participants’ baseline consumption of seven types of whole grain foods – whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, dark bread, brown rice, added bran, wheat germ, and popcorn – was based on self-replies to food frequency questionnaires.

During an average 24-year follow-up, 18,629 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

After adjusting for body mass index, lifestyle, and dietary risk factors, participants in the highest quintile of total whole grain consumption had a 29% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quintile.

The most commonly consumed whole grain foods were whole grain cold breakfast cereal, dark bread, and popcorn.

Compared with eating less than one serving a month of whole grain cold breakfast cereal or dark bread, eating one or more servings a day was associated with a 19% and 21% lower risk of developing diabetes, respectively.

For popcorn, a J-shaped association was found for intake, where the risk of type 2 diabetes was not significantly raised until consumption exceeded about one serving a day, which led to about an 8% increased risk of developing diabetes – likely related to fat and sugar added to the popcorn, the researchers wrote.

For the less frequently consumed whole grain foods, compared with eating less than one serving a month of oatmeal, brown rice, added bran, or wheat germ, participants who ate two or more servings a week had a 21%, 12%, 15%, and 12% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Lean or overweight individuals had a greater decreased risk of diabetes with increased consumption of whole grain foods; however, because individuals with obesity have a higher risk of diabetes, even a small decrease in risk is still meaningful.

Limitations include the study was observational and may have had unknown confounders, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations, the authors note.
 

‘Five a day’ fruits and vegetables

Only one previous small published study from the United Kingdom has examined how blood levels of vitamin C and carotenoids are associated with incident type 2 diabetes, Dr. Zheng and colleagues wrote.

They investigated the relationship in 9,754 adults who developed new-onset type 2 diabetes and a comparison group of 13,662 adults who remained diabetes free during an average 9.7-year follow-up, from 340,234 participants in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition–InterAct study.

Participants were from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and incident type 2 diabetes occurred between 1991 and 2007.

The researchers used high-performance liquid chromatography–ultraviolet methods to determine participants’ plasma levels of vitamin C and six carotenoids (alphta-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, beta-cryptoxanthin), which they used to calculate a composite biomarker score.

The recommendation to eat at least five fruits and vegetables a day corresponds to eating ≥400 g/day, according to Dr. Zheng and colleagues. The self-reported median fruit and vegetable intake in the current study was 274, 357, 396, 452, and 508 g/day from lowest to highest quintile.

After multivariable adjustment, higher levels of plasma vitamin C and carotenoids were associated with an 18% and 25% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes per standard deviation, respectively.

Compared with patients whose vitamin C and carotenoid composite biomarker scores were in the lowest 20%, those with scores in the top 20% had half the risk of incident diabetes. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by 66 g/day was associated with a 25% lower risk of developing diabetes.

“These findings provide strong evidence from objectively measured biomarkers for the recommendation that fruit and vegetable intake should be increased to prevent type 2 diabetes,” according to the researchers.

However, consumption of fruits and vegetables remains far below guideline recommendations, they observed. “Although five portions a day of fruit and vegetables have been recommended for decades, in 2014-2015, 69% of U.K. adults ate fewer than this number, and this proportion is even higher in European adults (86%).”

Dr. Zheng and colleagues acknowledged that study limitations include those that are inherent with observational studies.

Although they could not distinguish between juice, fortified products, or whole foods, the analyses “were adjusted for vitamin supplement use, and suggest that as biomarkers of fruit and vegetable intake these findings endorse the consumption of fruit and vegetables, not that of supplements,” they maintained.

The study by Mr. Hu and colleagues was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The InterAct project was funded by the EU FP6 program. Biomarker measurements for vitamin C and carotenoids were funded by the InterAct project, EPIC-CVD project, MRC Cambridge Initiative, European Commission Framework Program 7, European Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Zheng has reported receiving funding from Westlake University and the EU Horizon 2020 program.

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

Two studies published this week in BMJ provide support for eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grain foods to lower the risk of developing diabetes.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In a pooled analysis of three large prospective American cohorts, people with the highest versus lowest total consumption of whole grain foods had a significantly lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

“These findings provide further support for the current recommendations of increasing whole grain consumption as part of a healthy diet for the prevention of type 2 diabetes,” wrote the authors led by Yang Hu, a doctoral student at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Similarly, in a large European case-cohort study, people with higher values for plasma vitamin C and carotenoids (fruit and vegetable intake) had a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.

“This study suggests that even a modest increase in fruit and vegetable intake could help to prevent type 2 diabetes ... regardless of whether the increase is among people with initially low or high intake,” wrote Ju-Sheng Zheng, PhD, University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues.
 

Individual whole grain foods

Previous studies have shown that high consumption of whole grains is associated with a lower risk of developing chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and some types of cancer, Mr. Hu and colleagues wrote.

Although research has shown that whole grain breakfast cereal and brown rice are linked with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, the effect of other commonly consumed whole grain foods – which contain different amounts of dietary fiber, antioxidants, magnesium, and phytochemicals – has not been established.

Mr. Hu and colleagues analyzed pooled data from 158,259 U.S. women who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014) or the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2017) and 36,525 U.S. men who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016), who were free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Participants’ baseline consumption of seven types of whole grain foods – whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, dark bread, brown rice, added bran, wheat germ, and popcorn – was based on self-replies to food frequency questionnaires.

During an average 24-year follow-up, 18,629 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

After adjusting for body mass index, lifestyle, and dietary risk factors, participants in the highest quintile of total whole grain consumption had a 29% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quintile.

The most commonly consumed whole grain foods were whole grain cold breakfast cereal, dark bread, and popcorn.

Compared with eating less than one serving a month of whole grain cold breakfast cereal or dark bread, eating one or more servings a day was associated with a 19% and 21% lower risk of developing diabetes, respectively.

For popcorn, a J-shaped association was found for intake, where the risk of type 2 diabetes was not significantly raised until consumption exceeded about one serving a day, which led to about an 8% increased risk of developing diabetes – likely related to fat and sugar added to the popcorn, the researchers wrote.

For the less frequently consumed whole grain foods, compared with eating less than one serving a month of oatmeal, brown rice, added bran, or wheat germ, participants who ate two or more servings a week had a 21%, 12%, 15%, and 12% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Lean or overweight individuals had a greater decreased risk of diabetes with increased consumption of whole grain foods; however, because individuals with obesity have a higher risk of diabetes, even a small decrease in risk is still meaningful.

Limitations include the study was observational and may have had unknown confounders, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations, the authors note.
 

‘Five a day’ fruits and vegetables

Only one previous small published study from the United Kingdom has examined how blood levels of vitamin C and carotenoids are associated with incident type 2 diabetes, Dr. Zheng and colleagues wrote.

They investigated the relationship in 9,754 adults who developed new-onset type 2 diabetes and a comparison group of 13,662 adults who remained diabetes free during an average 9.7-year follow-up, from 340,234 participants in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition–InterAct study.

Participants were from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and incident type 2 diabetes occurred between 1991 and 2007.

The researchers used high-performance liquid chromatography–ultraviolet methods to determine participants’ plasma levels of vitamin C and six carotenoids (alphta-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, beta-cryptoxanthin), which they used to calculate a composite biomarker score.

The recommendation to eat at least five fruits and vegetables a day corresponds to eating ≥400 g/day, according to Dr. Zheng and colleagues. The self-reported median fruit and vegetable intake in the current study was 274, 357, 396, 452, and 508 g/day from lowest to highest quintile.

After multivariable adjustment, higher levels of plasma vitamin C and carotenoids were associated with an 18% and 25% lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes per standard deviation, respectively.

Compared with patients whose vitamin C and carotenoid composite biomarker scores were in the lowest 20%, those with scores in the top 20% had half the risk of incident diabetes. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by 66 g/day was associated with a 25% lower risk of developing diabetes.

“These findings provide strong evidence from objectively measured biomarkers for the recommendation that fruit and vegetable intake should be increased to prevent type 2 diabetes,” according to the researchers.

However, consumption of fruits and vegetables remains far below guideline recommendations, they observed. “Although five portions a day of fruit and vegetables have been recommended for decades, in 2014-2015, 69% of U.K. adults ate fewer than this number, and this proportion is even higher in European adults (86%).”

Dr. Zheng and colleagues acknowledged that study limitations include those that are inherent with observational studies.

Although they could not distinguish between juice, fortified products, or whole foods, the analyses “were adjusted for vitamin supplement use, and suggest that as biomarkers of fruit and vegetable intake these findings endorse the consumption of fruit and vegetables, not that of supplements,” they maintained.

The study by Mr. Hu and colleagues was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The InterAct project was funded by the EU FP6 program. Biomarker measurements for vitamin C and carotenoids were funded by the InterAct project, EPIC-CVD project, MRC Cambridge Initiative, European Commission Framework Program 7, European Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Zheng has reported receiving funding from Westlake University and the EU Horizon 2020 program.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

What do you do now?

Your waiting room is filled with mask-wearing individuals, except for one person. Your staff offers a mask to this person, citing your office policy of requiring masks for all persons in order to prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 spread, and the patient refuses to put it on.

What can you/should you/must you do? Are you required to see a patient who refuses to wear a mask? If you ask the patient to leave without being seen, can you be accused of patient abandonment? If you allow the patient to stay, could you be liable for negligence for exposing others to a deadly illness?

The rules on mask-wearing, while initially downright confusing, have inexorably come to a rough consensus. By governors’ orders, masks are now mandatory in most states, though when and where they are required varies. For example, effective July 7, the governor of Washington has ordered that a business not allow a customer to enter without a face covering.

So far, there are no cases or court decisions to guide us about whether it is negligence to allow an unmasked patient to commingle in a medical practice. Nor do we have case law to help us determine whether patient abandonment would apply if a patient is sent home without being seen.

We can apply the legal principles and cases from other situations to this one, however, to tell us what constitutes negligence or patient abandonment. The practical questions, legally, are who might sue and on what basis?

Who might sue?

Someone who is injured in a public place may sue the owner for negligence if the owner knew or should have known of a danger and didn’t do anything about it. For example, individuals have sued grocery stores successfully after they slipped on a banana peel and fell. If, say, the banana peel was black, that indicates that it had been there for a while, and judges have found that the store management should have known about it and removed it.

Compare the banana peel scenario with the scenario where most news outlets and health departments are telling people, every day, to wear masks while in indoor public spaces, yet owners of a medical practice or facility allow individuals who are not wearing masks to sit in their waiting room. If an individual who was also in the waiting room with the unmasked individual develops COVID-19 2 days later, the ill individual may sue the medical practice for negligence for not removing the unmasked individual.

What about the individual’s responsibility to move away from the person not wearing a mask? That is the aspect of this scenario that attorneys and experts could argue about, for days, in a court case. But to go back to the banana peel case, one could argue that a customer in a grocery store should be looking out for banana peels on the floor and avoid them, yet courts have assigned liability to grocery stores when customers slip and fall.

Let’s review the four elements of negligence which a plaintiff would need to prove:

• Duty: Obligation of one person to another
• Breach: Improper act or omission, in the context of proper behavior to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property
• Damage
• Causation: That the act or omission caused the harm

Those who run medical offices and facilities have a duty to provide reasonably safe public spaces. Unmasked individuals are a risk to others nearby, so the “breach” element is satisfied if a practice fails to impose safety measures. Causation could be proven, or at least inferred, if contact tracing of an individual with COVID-19 showed that the only contact likely to have exposed the ill individual to the virus was an unmasked individual in a medical practice’s waiting room, especially if the unmasked individual was COVID-19 positive before, during, or shortly after the visit to the practice.

What about patient abandonment?

“Patient abandonment” is the legal term for terminating the physician-patient relationship in such a manner that the patient is denied necessary medical care. It is a form of negligence.

Refusing to see a patient unless the patient wears a mask is not denying care, in this attorney’s view, but rather establishing reasonable conditions for getting care. The patient simply needs to put on a mask.

What about the patient who refuses to wear a mask for medical reasons? There are exceptions in most of the governors’ orders for individuals with medical conditions that preclude covering nose and mouth with a mask. A medical office is the perfect place to test an individual’s ability or inability to breathe well while wearing a mask. “Put the mask on and we’ll see how you do” is a reasonable response. Monitor the patient visually and apply a pulse oximeter with mask off and mask on.

One physician recently wrote about measuring her own oxygen levels while wearing four different masks for 5 minutes each, with no change in breathing.

Editor’s note: Read more about mask exemptions in a Medscape interview with pulmonologist Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association.

What are some practical tips?

Assuming that a patient is not in acute distress, options in this scenario include:

• Send the patient home and offer a return visit if masked or when the pandemic is over.
• Offer a telehealth visit, with the patient at home.

What if the unmasked person is not a patient but the companion of a patient? What if the individual refusing to wear a mask is an employee? In neither of these two hypotheticals is there a basis for legal action against a practice whose policy requires that everyone wear masks on the premises.

A companion who arrives without a mask should leave the office. An employee who refuses to mask up could be sent home. If the employee has a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, then the practice may need to make reasonable accommodations so that the employee works in a room alone if unable to work from home.

Those who manage medical practices should check the websites of the state health department and medical societies at least weekly, to see whether the agencies have issued guidance. For example, the Texas Medical Association has issued limited guidance.

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

Children who were overweight or obese at ages 2-3 years and at 6-7 years were significantly more likely than were healthy-weight children to show cardiometabolic risk factors at 11-12 years in a population-based study of more than 5,000 children.

SolStock/iStock

Previous studies of the impact of childhood body mass index on cardiovascular disease have used a single BMI measurement, wrote Kate Lycett, PhD, of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, and colleagues. “This overlooks the considerable physiologic changes in BMI throughout childhood as part of typical growth.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined overweight and obesity at five time points in a cohort of 5,107 infants by measuring BMI every 2 years between the ages of 2-3 years and 10-11 years.

Overall, children with consistently high BMI trajectories from age 3 years had the highest risk of metabolic syndrome. At age 6-7 years, overweight and obese children had, respectively, higher metabolic syndrome risk scores by 0.23 and 0.76 mean standard deviation (SD) units, compared with healthy-weight children; these associations approximately doubled by age 11-12 years.

In addition, obese children had higher pulse wave velocity (PWV) from age 6-7 years (0.64-0.73 standard deviation units) and slightly higher carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) at all measured ages, compared with healthy-weight children (0.20-0.30 SD units).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to evaluate the effects of BMI on actual cardiovascular disease because of the young age of the study population, the researchers noted.

However, the “results are in keeping with previous studies but provide additional important insights that suggest BMI from as early as 2 to 3 years of age is predictive of preclinical cardiometabolic phenotypes by ages 11 to 12 years,” Dr. Lycett and associates said. The results have implications for public health by highlighting the subclinical effects of obesity in childhood and the importance of early intervention, they concluded.

“This important and comprehensive study has two important implications: first, high BMI by age 2 to 3 tends to stay high, and second, normal BMI occasionally increases to high BMI, but the reverse is rarely true,” Sarah Armstrong, MD, Jennifer S. Li, MD, and Asheley C. Skinner, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1353).

The finding that children who were obese at age 3 years showed significant markers of silent atherosclerotic disease by age 11 years was “striking,” noted the editorialists, who are affiliated with Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“An important caveat is that although the relationships were significant, the amount of variance attributable directly to child BMI was small,” which highlights the complex relationship between obesity and health, they noted.

“Early-onset obesity is unlikely to change and, if it persists, will lead to detectable precursors of atherosclerosis by the time a child enters middle school,” and parents and primary care providers have an opportunity to “flatten the curve” by addressing BMI increases early in life to delay or prevent obesity, the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, The Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Financial Markets Foundation for Children, and Victorian Deaf Education Institute. A number of the researchers were supported by grants from these and other universities and organizations. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lycett K et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3666.

Children who were overweight or obese at ages 2-3 years and at 6-7 years were significantly more likely than were healthy-weight children to show cardiometabolic risk factors at 11-12 years in a population-based study of more than 5,000 children.

SolStock/iStock

Previous studies of the impact of childhood body mass index on cardiovascular disease have used a single BMI measurement, wrote Kate Lycett, PhD, of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, and colleagues. “This overlooks the considerable physiologic changes in BMI throughout childhood as part of typical growth.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined overweight and obesity at five time points in a cohort of 5,107 infants by measuring BMI every 2 years between the ages of 2-3 years and 10-11 years.

Overall, children with consistently high BMI trajectories from age 3 years had the highest risk of metabolic syndrome. At age 6-7 years, overweight and obese children had, respectively, higher metabolic syndrome risk scores by 0.23 and 0.76 mean standard deviation (SD) units, compared with healthy-weight children; these associations approximately doubled by age 11-12 years.

In addition, obese children had higher pulse wave velocity (PWV) from age 6-7 years (0.64-0.73 standard deviation units) and slightly higher carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) at all measured ages, compared with healthy-weight children (0.20-0.30 SD units).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to evaluate the effects of BMI on actual cardiovascular disease because of the young age of the study population, the researchers noted.

However, the “results are in keeping with previous studies but provide additional important insights that suggest BMI from as early as 2 to 3 years of age is predictive of preclinical cardiometabolic phenotypes by ages 11 to 12 years,” Dr. Lycett and associates said. The results have implications for public health by highlighting the subclinical effects of obesity in childhood and the importance of early intervention, they concluded.

“This important and comprehensive study has two important implications: first, high BMI by age 2 to 3 tends to stay high, and second, normal BMI occasionally increases to high BMI, but the reverse is rarely true,” Sarah Armstrong, MD, Jennifer S. Li, MD, and Asheley C. Skinner, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1353).

The finding that children who were obese at age 3 years showed significant markers of silent atherosclerotic disease by age 11 years was “striking,” noted the editorialists, who are affiliated with Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“An important caveat is that although the relationships were significant, the amount of variance attributable directly to child BMI was small,” which highlights the complex relationship between obesity and health, they noted.

“Early-onset obesity is unlikely to change and, if it persists, will lead to detectable precursors of atherosclerosis by the time a child enters middle school,” and parents and primary care providers have an opportunity to “flatten the curve” by addressing BMI increases early in life to delay or prevent obesity, the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, The Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Financial Markets Foundation for Children, and Victorian Deaf Education Institute. A number of the researchers were supported by grants from these and other universities and organizations. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lycett K et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3666.

Children who were overweight or obese at ages 2-3 years and at 6-7 years were significantly more likely than were healthy-weight children to show cardiometabolic risk factors at 11-12 years in a population-based study of more than 5,000 children.

SolStock/iStock

Previous studies of the impact of childhood body mass index on cardiovascular disease have used a single BMI measurement, wrote Kate Lycett, PhD, of Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, and colleagues. “This overlooks the considerable physiologic changes in BMI throughout childhood as part of typical growth.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined overweight and obesity at five time points in a cohort of 5,107 infants by measuring BMI every 2 years between the ages of 2-3 years and 10-11 years.

Overall, children with consistently high BMI trajectories from age 3 years had the highest risk of metabolic syndrome. At age 6-7 years, overweight and obese children had, respectively, higher metabolic syndrome risk scores by 0.23 and 0.76 mean standard deviation (SD) units, compared with healthy-weight children; these associations approximately doubled by age 11-12 years.

In addition, obese children had higher pulse wave velocity (PWV) from age 6-7 years (0.64-0.73 standard deviation units) and slightly higher carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) at all measured ages, compared with healthy-weight children (0.20-0.30 SD units).

The findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to evaluate the effects of BMI on actual cardiovascular disease because of the young age of the study population, the researchers noted.

However, the “results are in keeping with previous studies but provide additional important insights that suggest BMI from as early as 2 to 3 years of age is predictive of preclinical cardiometabolic phenotypes by ages 11 to 12 years,” Dr. Lycett and associates said. The results have implications for public health by highlighting the subclinical effects of obesity in childhood and the importance of early intervention, they concluded.

“This important and comprehensive study has two important implications: first, high BMI by age 2 to 3 tends to stay high, and second, normal BMI occasionally increases to high BMI, but the reverse is rarely true,” Sarah Armstrong, MD, Jennifer S. Li, MD, and Asheley C. Skinner, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1353).

The finding that children who were obese at age 3 years showed significant markers of silent atherosclerotic disease by age 11 years was “striking,” noted the editorialists, who are affiliated with Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“An important caveat is that although the relationships were significant, the amount of variance attributable directly to child BMI was small,” which highlights the complex relationship between obesity and health, they noted.

“Early-onset obesity is unlikely to change and, if it persists, will lead to detectable precursors of atherosclerosis by the time a child enters middle school,” and parents and primary care providers have an opportunity to “flatten the curve” by addressing BMI increases early in life to delay or prevent obesity, the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, The Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Financial Markets Foundation for Children, and Victorian Deaf Education Institute. A number of the researchers were supported by grants from these and other universities and organizations. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lycett K et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3666.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Diabetes was by far the most common delayed pediatric presentation in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 2,500 pediatricians in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

There were also nine deaths where delayed presentation was considered a contributing factor, resulting mainly from sepsis and malignancy.

By comparison, over the same 2-week period of the survey there were three child deaths from COVID-19 directly, according to senior study author Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, chair of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London.

“The unintended consequences of COVID are far greater, in children, than the disease itself. The way we are trying to prevent this is causing more harm than the disease,” he lamented.

One-third of senior U.K. pediatric specialists who responded to the survey reported dealing with so-called emergency delayed presentations in children who they would normally have expected to present much earlier.

After diabetes, the most commonly reported delayed diagnoses were sepsis and child protection issues. Cancer also featured prominently.

“We’ve found that there is great concern that children are not accessing healthcare as they should during lockdown and after,” Dr. Ladhani stressed. “Our emergency departments saw a 50% reduction during the peak, and now it is still 40% less than expected. The problem is improving but it remains.”

The survey findings were recently published online in Archives of Disease in Childhood, by first author Richard M. Lynn, MSc, of the Institute of Child Health, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Research, and colleagues.
 

New diabetes cases presented very late during lockdown

Over the 2-week reporting period in mid-April 2020, type 1 diabetes was the most frequently reported delayed diagnosis, with 44 cases overall, 23 of which involved diabetic ketoacidosis.

“If you talk to the diabetes specialists, they tell us that generally, most cases of new diabetes arrive late because it has very nonspecific symptoms,” Dr. Ladhani explained.

However, he added, “pediatricians on the frontline know what to expect with diabetes. Those children who would have come in late prior to the pandemic are now arriving very late. Those consultants surveyed were not junior doctors but consultant pediatricians with many years of experience.”

In a recent article looking at pediatric delayed presentations, one patient with diabetes entered intensive care, and the BPSU report recorded one death possibly associated with diabetes, Dr. Ladhani pointed out.

“Pediatricians are worried that children are coming in late. We need to raise awareness that parents need to access healthcare and this message needs to go out now,” he said. “We can’t wait until a second wave. It has to be now because A&E [accident and emergency] attendance is still 40% [lower than] ... expected.”
 

BPSU survey covers over 90% of pediatricians in U.K. and Ireland

After numerous anecdotal reports of delayed presentations in the United Kingdom and abroad, the snapshot survey was conducted as part of routine monthly reports where pediatricians are asked to document any cases of rare conditions seen.

“We had heard stories of delayed presentations, but we wanted to know was this a real problem or just anecdotal?” Dr. Ladhani said.

The regular BPSU survey covers over 90% of U.K.- and Ireland-based pediatric consultants (numbering 4,075). On the back of this established communication, the BPSU decided to gauge the extent of delayed presentations during the peak weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the next 7 days, 2,433 pediatricians, representing 60% of BPSU participants, responded.

“This response rate in 7 days highlights the importance given to the survey by pediatricians ... and the widespread professional concern about delayed presentations,” the authors wrote.

Participants were asked whether they had seen any children during the previous 14 days who, in their opinion, presented later than they would have expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There’s no one definition for this but these senior clinicians know when something is unusual,” said Dr. Ladhani.

ED attendances were compared with figures for the same period last year. Overall, a total of 32% of 752 pediatricians working in EDs and pediatric assessment units reported witnessing delayed presentations, with 57 (8%) reporting at least three patients with delayed presentation.

“It was clear that those doctors on the frontline were seeing a lot of delayed presentations. Also, neonatologists reported women arriving late for labor, and community physicians said they just weren’t witnessing child protection cases anymore,” added Dr. Ladhani.

Other issues included early discharges following births because of COVID-19 concerns, before feeding had been established, prompting return visits because of feeding problems and dehydration.

The top five delayed diagnoses were diabetes (n = 44), sepsis (n = 21), child protection (n = 14), malignancy (n = 8), and appendicitis (n = 6). There were 10 delayed perinatal presentations.

Of the nine deaths, for which delayed presentation was considered to play a role, three were caused by sepsis, three were caused by new malignancy diagnoses, one was caused by new diagnosis of metabolic disease, and two did not have the cause reported.

The delays in presentation are likely to have been influenced by the U.K. government’s message to “stay at home” during the strict lockdown period, which perhaps was sometimes interpreted too literally, Dr. Ladhani suggested. “It was the right message socially, but not medically.”

Russell Viner, MB, PhD, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said in a statement: “The impact for children is what we call ‘collateral damage’, including long absences from school and delays or interruptions to vital services. We know that parents adhered very strongly to the ‘stay at home’ [message] and we need to say clearly that this doesn’t apply if your child is very sick. Should we experience a second wave or regional outbreaks, it is vital that we get the message out to parents that we want to see unwell children at the earliest possible stage.”

Dr. Ladhani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diabetes was by far the most common delayed pediatric presentation in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 2,500 pediatricians in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

There were also nine deaths where delayed presentation was considered a contributing factor, resulting mainly from sepsis and malignancy.

By comparison, over the same 2-week period of the survey there were three child deaths from COVID-19 directly, according to senior study author Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, chair of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London.

“The unintended consequences of COVID are far greater, in children, than the disease itself. The way we are trying to prevent this is causing more harm than the disease,” he lamented.

One-third of senior U.K. pediatric specialists who responded to the survey reported dealing with so-called emergency delayed presentations in children who they would normally have expected to present much earlier.

After diabetes, the most commonly reported delayed diagnoses were sepsis and child protection issues. Cancer also featured prominently.

“We’ve found that there is great concern that children are not accessing healthcare as they should during lockdown and after,” Dr. Ladhani stressed. “Our emergency departments saw a 50% reduction during the peak, and now it is still 40% less than expected. The problem is improving but it remains.”

The survey findings were recently published online in Archives of Disease in Childhood, by first author Richard M. Lynn, MSc, of the Institute of Child Health, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Research, and colleagues.
 

New diabetes cases presented very late during lockdown

Over the 2-week reporting period in mid-April 2020, type 1 diabetes was the most frequently reported delayed diagnosis, with 44 cases overall, 23 of which involved diabetic ketoacidosis.

“If you talk to the diabetes specialists, they tell us that generally, most cases of new diabetes arrive late because it has very nonspecific symptoms,” Dr. Ladhani explained.

However, he added, “pediatricians on the frontline know what to expect with diabetes. Those children who would have come in late prior to the pandemic are now arriving very late. Those consultants surveyed were not junior doctors but consultant pediatricians with many years of experience.”

In a recent article looking at pediatric delayed presentations, one patient with diabetes entered intensive care, and the BPSU report recorded one death possibly associated with diabetes, Dr. Ladhani pointed out.

“Pediatricians are worried that children are coming in late. We need to raise awareness that parents need to access healthcare and this message needs to go out now,” he said. “We can’t wait until a second wave. It has to be now because A&E [accident and emergency] attendance is still 40% [lower than] ... expected.”
 

BPSU survey covers over 90% of pediatricians in U.K. and Ireland

After numerous anecdotal reports of delayed presentations in the United Kingdom and abroad, the snapshot survey was conducted as part of routine monthly reports where pediatricians are asked to document any cases of rare conditions seen.

“We had heard stories of delayed presentations, but we wanted to know was this a real problem or just anecdotal?” Dr. Ladhani said.

The regular BPSU survey covers over 90% of U.K.- and Ireland-based pediatric consultants (numbering 4,075). On the back of this established communication, the BPSU decided to gauge the extent of delayed presentations during the peak weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the next 7 days, 2,433 pediatricians, representing 60% of BPSU participants, responded.

“This response rate in 7 days highlights the importance given to the survey by pediatricians ... and the widespread professional concern about delayed presentations,” the authors wrote.

Participants were asked whether they had seen any children during the previous 14 days who, in their opinion, presented later than they would have expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There’s no one definition for this but these senior clinicians know when something is unusual,” said Dr. Ladhani.

ED attendances were compared with figures for the same period last year. Overall, a total of 32% of 752 pediatricians working in EDs and pediatric assessment units reported witnessing delayed presentations, with 57 (8%) reporting at least three patients with delayed presentation.

“It was clear that those doctors on the frontline were seeing a lot of delayed presentations. Also, neonatologists reported women arriving late for labor, and community physicians said they just weren’t witnessing child protection cases anymore,” added Dr. Ladhani.

Other issues included early discharges following births because of COVID-19 concerns, before feeding had been established, prompting return visits because of feeding problems and dehydration.

The top five delayed diagnoses were diabetes (n = 44), sepsis (n = 21), child protection (n = 14), malignancy (n = 8), and appendicitis (n = 6). There were 10 delayed perinatal presentations.

Of the nine deaths, for which delayed presentation was considered to play a role, three were caused by sepsis, three were caused by new malignancy diagnoses, one was caused by new diagnosis of metabolic disease, and two did not have the cause reported.

The delays in presentation are likely to have been influenced by the U.K. government’s message to “stay at home” during the strict lockdown period, which perhaps was sometimes interpreted too literally, Dr. Ladhani suggested. “It was the right message socially, but not medically.”

Russell Viner, MB, PhD, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said in a statement: “The impact for children is what we call ‘collateral damage’, including long absences from school and delays or interruptions to vital services. We know that parents adhered very strongly to the ‘stay at home’ [message] and we need to say clearly that this doesn’t apply if your child is very sick. Should we experience a second wave or regional outbreaks, it is vital that we get the message out to parents that we want to see unwell children at the earliest possible stage.”

Dr. Ladhani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diabetes was by far the most common delayed pediatric presentation in emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 2,500 pediatricians in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

There were also nine deaths where delayed presentation was considered a contributing factor, resulting mainly from sepsis and malignancy.

By comparison, over the same 2-week period of the survey there were three child deaths from COVID-19 directly, according to senior study author Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, chair of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU), Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London.

“The unintended consequences of COVID are far greater, in children, than the disease itself. The way we are trying to prevent this is causing more harm than the disease,” he lamented.

One-third of senior U.K. pediatric specialists who responded to the survey reported dealing with so-called emergency delayed presentations in children who they would normally have expected to present much earlier.

After diabetes, the most commonly reported delayed diagnoses were sepsis and child protection issues. Cancer also featured prominently.

“We’ve found that there is great concern that children are not accessing healthcare as they should during lockdown and after,” Dr. Ladhani stressed. “Our emergency departments saw a 50% reduction during the peak, and now it is still 40% less than expected. The problem is improving but it remains.”

The survey findings were recently published online in Archives of Disease in Childhood, by first author Richard M. Lynn, MSc, of the Institute of Child Health, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Research, and colleagues.
 

New diabetes cases presented very late during lockdown

Over the 2-week reporting period in mid-April 2020, type 1 diabetes was the most frequently reported delayed diagnosis, with 44 cases overall, 23 of which involved diabetic ketoacidosis.

“If you talk to the diabetes specialists, they tell us that generally, most cases of new diabetes arrive late because it has very nonspecific symptoms,” Dr. Ladhani explained.

However, he added, “pediatricians on the frontline know what to expect with diabetes. Those children who would have come in late prior to the pandemic are now arriving very late. Those consultants surveyed were not junior doctors but consultant pediatricians with many years of experience.”

In a recent article looking at pediatric delayed presentations, one patient with diabetes entered intensive care, and the BPSU report recorded one death possibly associated with diabetes, Dr. Ladhani pointed out.

“Pediatricians are worried that children are coming in late. We need to raise awareness that parents need to access healthcare and this message needs to go out now,” he said. “We can’t wait until a second wave. It has to be now because A&E [accident and emergency] attendance is still 40% [lower than] ... expected.”
 

BPSU survey covers over 90% of pediatricians in U.K. and Ireland

After numerous anecdotal reports of delayed presentations in the United Kingdom and abroad, the snapshot survey was conducted as part of routine monthly reports where pediatricians are asked to document any cases of rare conditions seen.

“We had heard stories of delayed presentations, but we wanted to know was this a real problem or just anecdotal?” Dr. Ladhani said.

The regular BPSU survey covers over 90% of U.K.- and Ireland-based pediatric consultants (numbering 4,075). On the back of this established communication, the BPSU decided to gauge the extent of delayed presentations during the peak weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the next 7 days, 2,433 pediatricians, representing 60% of BPSU participants, responded.

“This response rate in 7 days highlights the importance given to the survey by pediatricians ... and the widespread professional concern about delayed presentations,” the authors wrote.

Participants were asked whether they had seen any children during the previous 14 days who, in their opinion, presented later than they would have expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There’s no one definition for this but these senior clinicians know when something is unusual,” said Dr. Ladhani.

ED attendances were compared with figures for the same period last year. Overall, a total of 32% of 752 pediatricians working in EDs and pediatric assessment units reported witnessing delayed presentations, with 57 (8%) reporting at least three patients with delayed presentation.

“It was clear that those doctors on the frontline were seeing a lot of delayed presentations. Also, neonatologists reported women arriving late for labor, and community physicians said they just weren’t witnessing child protection cases anymore,” added Dr. Ladhani.

Other issues included early discharges following births because of COVID-19 concerns, before feeding had been established, prompting return visits because of feeding problems and dehydration.

The top five delayed diagnoses were diabetes (n = 44), sepsis (n = 21), child protection (n = 14), malignancy (n = 8), and appendicitis (n = 6). There were 10 delayed perinatal presentations.

Of the nine deaths, for which delayed presentation was considered to play a role, three were caused by sepsis, three were caused by new malignancy diagnoses, one was caused by new diagnosis of metabolic disease, and two did not have the cause reported.

The delays in presentation are likely to have been influenced by the U.K. government’s message to “stay at home” during the strict lockdown period, which perhaps was sometimes interpreted too literally, Dr. Ladhani suggested. “It was the right message socially, but not medically.”

Russell Viner, MB, PhD, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said in a statement: “The impact for children is what we call ‘collateral damage’, including long absences from school and delays or interruptions to vital services. We know that parents adhered very strongly to the ‘stay at home’ [message] and we need to say clearly that this doesn’t apply if your child is very sick. Should we experience a second wave or regional outbreaks, it is vital that we get the message out to parents that we want to see unwell children at the earliest possible stage.”

Dr. Ladhani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.

The findings, based on more than 320,000 predominantly white male patients, initially without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), underscore the notion that “age on its own shouldn’t be a criterion not to use these drugs,” Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.

The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.

“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.

Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.

Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.

The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”

Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.

Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.

Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.

“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.

But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.

Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.

The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.

Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.

“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”

There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.

However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”

Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.

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

Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.

The findings, based on more than 320,000 predominantly white male patients, initially without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), underscore the notion that “age on its own shouldn’t be a criterion not to use these drugs,” Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.

The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.

“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.

Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.

Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.

The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”

Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.

Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.

Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.

“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.

But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.

Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.

The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.

Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.

“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”

There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.

However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”

Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.

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

Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.

The findings, based on more than 320,000 predominantly white male patients, initially without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), underscore the notion that “age on its own shouldn’t be a criterion not to use these drugs,” Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.

The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.

“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.

Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.

Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.

The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”

Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.

Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.

Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.

“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.

But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.

Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.

The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.

Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.

“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”

There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.

However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”

Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.

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