Clinical Endocrinology News

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

For diabetes patients with no cardiovascular symptoms despite certain risk factors, incorporating coronary calcium scoring into a silent myocardial ischemia screening algorithm may be an effective and cost-conscious strategy that avoids missed coronary stenoses suitable for revascularization, results of a recent study suggest.

Zero patients in need of revascularization were missed in a risk stratification model in which screening for silent myocardial ischemia (SMI) was done only for patients with peripheral artery disease, severe nephropathy, or a high coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, according to investigator Paul Valensi, MD.

In practical terms, that means stress myocardial scintigraphy to detect SMI could be reserved for patients with evidence of target organ damage or a CAC score of 100 or higher, according to Dr. Valensi, head of the department of endocrinology, diabetology, and nutrition at Jean Verdier Hospital in Bondy, France.

“The strategy appears to be a good compromise, and the most cost effective strategy,” Dr. Valensi said in a presentation of the results at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Utility of CAC scoring in diabetes

This algorithm proposed by Dr. Valenti and colleagues is a “reasonable” approach to guide risk stratification in asymptomatic diabetes patients, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine and director of cardiac CT at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, Calif.

“Calcium scoring could certainly help you identify those patients (at increased risk) as a first-line test, because if their calcium score is zero, their chance of having obstructive disease is probably either zero or very close to zero,” Dr. Budoff said in an interview.

Using CAC scores to assess cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults with diabetes was supported by 2010 guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, Dr. Budoff said, while 2019 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describe CAC score combined with CT as a potential risk modifier in the evaluation of certain asymptomatic patients with diabetes.

“We are starting to see that we might be able to understand diabetes better and the cardiovascular implications by understanding how much plaque (patients) have at the time that we see them,” Dr. Budoff said in a presentation on use of CAC scans he gave earlier at the virtual ADA meeting.

In the interview, Dr. Budoff also noted that CAC scores may be particularly useful for guiding use of statins, PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitors, or other treatments in patients with diabetes: “There are a lot of therapies that we can apply, if we knew somebody was at higher risk, that would potentially help them avoid a heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” he said.
 

CAC scoring and coronary artery stenoses

Although about 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes have SMI, screening for it is “debated,” according to Dr. Valensi.

The recent ESC guidelines state that while routine screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic diabetics is not recommended, stress testing or coronary angiography “may be indicated” in asymptomatic diabetics in the very-high cardiovascular risk category.

That position is based on a lack of benefit seen with a broad screening strategy, the guidelines say, possibly due in part to low event rates in randomized controlled trials that have studied the approach.

Using CAC scoring could change the equation by helping to identify a greater proportion of type 2 diabetics with SMI, according to Dr. Valensi.

“The role of the CAC score in the strategy of detection of SMI needs to be defined, and this role may depend on the a priori cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Dr. Valensi and colleagues accordingly tested several different approaches to selecting asymptomatic diabetic patients for SMI screening to see how they would perform in finding patients with coronary stenoses eligible for revascularization.

Their study included 416 diabetes patients with diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk but with no cardiac history or symptoms. A total of 40 patients (9.6%) had SMI, including 15 patients in which coronary stenoses were found; of those, 11 (73.5%) underwent a revascularization procedure.

They found that, by performing myocardial scintigraphy only in those patients with peripheral artery disease or severe nephropathy, they would have missed 6 patients with coronary stenosis suitable for revascularization among the 275 patients who did not meet those target organ damage criteria.

By contrast, zero patients would have been missed by performing myocardial scintigraphy in patients who either met those target organ damage criteria, or who had an elevated CAC score.

“We suggest screening for SMI, using stress myocardial CT scanning and coronary stenosis screening, only the patients with peripheral artery disease or severe nephropathy or with a high CAC score over 100 Agatston units,” said Dr. Valensi.

Dr. Valensi reported disclosures related to Merck Sharp Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, and others. Coauthors provided no disclosures related to the research. Dr. Budoff reported that he has served as a paid consultant to GE.

SOURCE: Berkane N et al. ADA 2020. Abstract 8-OR.

For diabetes patients with no cardiovascular symptoms despite certain risk factors, incorporating coronary calcium scoring into a silent myocardial ischemia screening algorithm may be an effective and cost-conscious strategy that avoids missed coronary stenoses suitable for revascularization, results of a recent study suggest.

Zero patients in need of revascularization were missed in a risk stratification model in which screening for silent myocardial ischemia (SMI) was done only for patients with peripheral artery disease, severe nephropathy, or a high coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, according to investigator Paul Valensi, MD.

In practical terms, that means stress myocardial scintigraphy to detect SMI could be reserved for patients with evidence of target organ damage or a CAC score of 100 or higher, according to Dr. Valensi, head of the department of endocrinology, diabetology, and nutrition at Jean Verdier Hospital in Bondy, France.

“The strategy appears to be a good compromise, and the most cost effective strategy,” Dr. Valensi said in a presentation of the results at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Utility of CAC scoring in diabetes

This algorithm proposed by Dr. Valenti and colleagues is a “reasonable” approach to guide risk stratification in asymptomatic diabetes patients, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine and director of cardiac CT at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, Calif.

“Calcium scoring could certainly help you identify those patients (at increased risk) as a first-line test, because if their calcium score is zero, their chance of having obstructive disease is probably either zero or very close to zero,” Dr. Budoff said in an interview.

Using CAC scores to assess cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults with diabetes was supported by 2010 guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, Dr. Budoff said, while 2019 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describe CAC score combined with CT as a potential risk modifier in the evaluation of certain asymptomatic patients with diabetes.

“We are starting to see that we might be able to understand diabetes better and the cardiovascular implications by understanding how much plaque (patients) have at the time that we see them,” Dr. Budoff said in a presentation on use of CAC scans he gave earlier at the virtual ADA meeting.

In the interview, Dr. Budoff also noted that CAC scores may be particularly useful for guiding use of statins, PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitors, or other treatments in patients with diabetes: “There are a lot of therapies that we can apply, if we knew somebody was at higher risk, that would potentially help them avoid a heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” he said.
 

CAC scoring and coronary artery stenoses

Although about 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes have SMI, screening for it is “debated,” according to Dr. Valensi.

The recent ESC guidelines state that while routine screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic diabetics is not recommended, stress testing or coronary angiography “may be indicated” in asymptomatic diabetics in the very-high cardiovascular risk category.

That position is based on a lack of benefit seen with a broad screening strategy, the guidelines say, possibly due in part to low event rates in randomized controlled trials that have studied the approach.

Using CAC scoring could change the equation by helping to identify a greater proportion of type 2 diabetics with SMI, according to Dr. Valensi.

“The role of the CAC score in the strategy of detection of SMI needs to be defined, and this role may depend on the a priori cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Dr. Valensi and colleagues accordingly tested several different approaches to selecting asymptomatic diabetic patients for SMI screening to see how they would perform in finding patients with coronary stenoses eligible for revascularization.

Their study included 416 diabetes patients with diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk but with no cardiac history or symptoms. A total of 40 patients (9.6%) had SMI, including 15 patients in which coronary stenoses were found; of those, 11 (73.5%) underwent a revascularization procedure.

They found that, by performing myocardial scintigraphy only in those patients with peripheral artery disease or severe nephropathy, they would have missed 6 patients with coronary stenosis suitable for revascularization among the 275 patients who did not meet those target organ damage criteria.

By contrast, zero patients would have been missed by performing myocardial scintigraphy in patients who either met those target organ damage criteria, or who had an elevated CAC score.

“We suggest screening for SMI, using stress myocardial CT scanning and coronary stenosis screening, only the patients with peripheral artery disease or severe nephropathy or with a high CAC score over 100 Agatston units,” said Dr. Valensi.

Dr. Valensi reported disclosures related to Merck Sharp Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, and others. Coauthors provided no disclosures related to the research. Dr. Budoff reported that he has served as a paid consultant to GE.

SOURCE: Berkane N et al. ADA 2020. Abstract 8-OR.

For diabetes patients with no cardiovascular symptoms despite certain risk factors, incorporating coronary calcium scoring into a silent myocardial ischemia screening algorithm may be an effective and cost-conscious strategy that avoids missed coronary stenoses suitable for revascularization, results of a recent study suggest.

Zero patients in need of revascularization were missed in a risk stratification model in which screening for silent myocardial ischemia (SMI) was done only for patients with peripheral artery disease, severe nephropathy, or a high coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, according to investigator Paul Valensi, MD.

In practical terms, that means stress myocardial scintigraphy to detect SMI could be reserved for patients with evidence of target organ damage or a CAC score of 100 or higher, according to Dr. Valensi, head of the department of endocrinology, diabetology, and nutrition at Jean Verdier Hospital in Bondy, France.

“The strategy appears to be a good compromise, and the most cost effective strategy,” Dr. Valensi said in a presentation of the results at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Utility of CAC scoring in diabetes

This algorithm proposed by Dr. Valenti and colleagues is a “reasonable” approach to guide risk stratification in asymptomatic diabetes patients, said Matthew J. Budoff, MD, professor of medicine and director of cardiac CT at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, Calif.

“Calcium scoring could certainly help you identify those patients (at increased risk) as a first-line test, because if their calcium score is zero, their chance of having obstructive disease is probably either zero or very close to zero,” Dr. Budoff said in an interview.

Using CAC scores to assess cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults with diabetes was supported by 2010 guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, Dr. Budoff said, while 2019 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describe CAC score combined with CT as a potential risk modifier in the evaluation of certain asymptomatic patients with diabetes.

“We are starting to see that we might be able to understand diabetes better and the cardiovascular implications by understanding how much plaque (patients) have at the time that we see them,” Dr. Budoff said in a presentation on use of CAC scans he gave earlier at the virtual ADA meeting.

In the interview, Dr. Budoff also noted that CAC scores may be particularly useful for guiding use of statins, PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitors, or other treatments in patients with diabetes: “There are a lot of therapies that we can apply, if we knew somebody was at higher risk, that would potentially help them avoid a heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” he said.
 

CAC scoring and coronary artery stenoses

Although about 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes have SMI, screening for it is “debated,” according to Dr. Valensi.

The recent ESC guidelines state that while routine screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic diabetics is not recommended, stress testing or coronary angiography “may be indicated” in asymptomatic diabetics in the very-high cardiovascular risk category.

That position is based on a lack of benefit seen with a broad screening strategy, the guidelines say, possibly due in part to low event rates in randomized controlled trials that have studied the approach.

Using CAC scoring could change the equation by helping to identify a greater proportion of type 2 diabetics with SMI, according to Dr. Valensi.

“The role of the CAC score in the strategy of detection of SMI needs to be defined, and this role may depend on the a priori cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Dr. Valensi and colleagues accordingly tested several different approaches to selecting asymptomatic diabetic patients for SMI screening to see how they would perform in finding patients with coronary stenoses eligible for revascularization.

Their study included 416 diabetes patients with diabetes at very high cardiovascular risk but with no cardiac history or symptoms. A total of 40 patients (9.6%) had SMI, including 15 patients in which coronary stenoses were found; of those, 11 (73.5%) underwent a revascularization procedure.

They found that, by performing myocardial scintigraphy only in those patients with peripheral artery disease or severe nephropathy, they would have missed 6 patients with coronary stenosis suitable for revascularization among the 275 patients who did not meet those target organ damage criteria.

By contrast, zero patients would have been missed by performing myocardial scintigraphy in patients who either met those target organ damage criteria, or who had an elevated CAC score.

“We suggest screening for SMI, using stress myocardial CT scanning and coronary stenosis screening, only the patients with peripheral artery disease or severe nephropathy or with a high CAC score over 100 Agatston units,” said Dr. Valensi.

Dr. Valensi reported disclosures related to Merck Sharp Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, and others. Coauthors provided no disclosures related to the research. Dr. Budoff reported that he has served as a paid consultant to GE.

SOURCE: Berkane N et al. ADA 2020. Abstract 8-OR.

Dapagliflozin treatment of patients with heart failure but without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial led to a one-third cut in the relative incidence of new-onset diabetes over a median follow-up of 18 months in a prespecified analysis from the multicenter trial that included 2,605 heart failure patients without diabetes at baseline.

The findings represented the first evidence that a drug from dapagliflozin’s class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, could prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes. It represents “an additional benefit” that dapagliflozin (Farxiga) offers to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) like those enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. DAPA-HF had previously proved that treatment with this drug significantly reduced the study’s primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure worsening.

During 18 months of follow-up, 7.1% of patients in the placebo arm developed type 2 diabetes, compared with 4.9% in those who received dapagliflozin, a 2.2% absolute difference and a 32% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant for this prespecified but “exploratory” endpoint, reported Dr. Inzucchi, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

For this analysis, a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 6.5% measured in two consecutive assessments was the criterion for diagnosing incident diabetes. The 2,605 enrolled patients without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial represented 55% of the entire trial cohort of 4,744 patients with HFrEF.

The 32% relative risk reduction for incident diabetes was primarily relevant to enrolled patients with prediabetes at entry, who constituted 67% of the enrolled cohort based on the usual definition of prediabetes, an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%.

Among all 157 (6%) of the DAPA-HF patients who developed diabetes during the trial, 150 (96%) occurred in patients with prediabetes by the usual definition; 136 of the incident cases (87%) had prediabetes by a more stringent criterion of an A1c of 6.0%-6.4%.

To put the preventive efficacy of dapagliflozin into more context, Dr. Inzucchi cited the 31% relative protection rate exerted by metformin in the Diabetes Prevention Program study (N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346[6]:393-403).

The findings showed that “dapagliflozin is the first medication demonstrated to reduce both incident type 2 diabetes and mortality in a single trial,” as well as the first agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to show a diabetes prevention effect, Dr. Inzucchi noted. Patients with both heart failure and diabetes are known to have a substantially increased mortality risk, compared with patients with just one of these diseases, and the potent risk posed by the confluence of both was confirmed in the results Dr. Inzucchi reported.

The 157 HFrEF patients in the trial who developed diabetes had a statistically significant 70% increased incidence of all-cause mortality during the trial’s follow-up, compared with similar HFrEF patients who remained free from a diabetes diagnosis, and they also had a significant 77% relative increase in their incidence of cardiovascular death. This analysis failed to show that incident diabetes had a significant impact on hospitalizations for heart failure coupled with cardiovascular death, another endpoint of the trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“This is a tremendously important analysis. We recognize that diabetes is an important factor that can forecast heart failure risk, even over relatively short follow-up. A drug that targets both diseases can be quite beneficial,” commented Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The impact of dapagliflozin on average A1c levels during the DAPA-HF trial was minimal, reducing levels by an average of 0.04% among those who entered with prediabetes and by 0.05% among the other patients. This suggests that the mechanisms by which dapagliflozin reduced incident diabetes was by routes that did not involve simply reducing hyperglycemia, and the observed decrease in incident diabetes was not apparently caused by “masking” of hyperglycemia by dapagliflozin, said Dr. Inzucchi.

One possibility is that dapagliflozin, which also improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations in the DAPA-HF trial, led to improved function and mobility among patients that had beneficial effects on their insulin sensitivity, Dr. Vaduganathan speculated in an interview.

The new finding of dapagliflozin’s benefit “is great news,” commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif. “It’s an impressive and important result, and another reason to use dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, a group of patients whom you want to prevent from having worse outcomes” by developing diabetes.

The DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial enrolled HFrEF patients at 410 centers in 20 countries during February 2017–August 2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the composite incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, which occurred in 16.3% of patients randomized to receive dapagliflozin and in 21.2% of control patients on standard care but on placebo instead of the study drug, a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 26% (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). In the 2,605-patient subgroup without type 2 diabetes at baseline the primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin treatment, the first time an SGLT2 inhibitor drug was shown effective for reducing this endpoint in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. DAPA-HF did not enroll any patients with type 1 diabetes.

DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an adviser to AstraZeneca and to Amgen, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including AstraZeneca.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inzucchi SE et al. ADA 2020, abstract 271-OR.

Dapagliflozin treatment of patients with heart failure but without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial led to a one-third cut in the relative incidence of new-onset diabetes over a median follow-up of 18 months in a prespecified analysis from the multicenter trial that included 2,605 heart failure patients without diabetes at baseline.

The findings represented the first evidence that a drug from dapagliflozin’s class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, could prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes. It represents “an additional benefit” that dapagliflozin (Farxiga) offers to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) like those enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. DAPA-HF had previously proved that treatment with this drug significantly reduced the study’s primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure worsening.

During 18 months of follow-up, 7.1% of patients in the placebo arm developed type 2 diabetes, compared with 4.9% in those who received dapagliflozin, a 2.2% absolute difference and a 32% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant for this prespecified but “exploratory” endpoint, reported Dr. Inzucchi, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

For this analysis, a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 6.5% measured in two consecutive assessments was the criterion for diagnosing incident diabetes. The 2,605 enrolled patients without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial represented 55% of the entire trial cohort of 4,744 patients with HFrEF.

The 32% relative risk reduction for incident diabetes was primarily relevant to enrolled patients with prediabetes at entry, who constituted 67% of the enrolled cohort based on the usual definition of prediabetes, an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%.

Among all 157 (6%) of the DAPA-HF patients who developed diabetes during the trial, 150 (96%) occurred in patients with prediabetes by the usual definition; 136 of the incident cases (87%) had prediabetes by a more stringent criterion of an A1c of 6.0%-6.4%.

To put the preventive efficacy of dapagliflozin into more context, Dr. Inzucchi cited the 31% relative protection rate exerted by metformin in the Diabetes Prevention Program study (N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346[6]:393-403).

The findings showed that “dapagliflozin is the first medication demonstrated to reduce both incident type 2 diabetes and mortality in a single trial,” as well as the first agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to show a diabetes prevention effect, Dr. Inzucchi noted. Patients with both heart failure and diabetes are known to have a substantially increased mortality risk, compared with patients with just one of these diseases, and the potent risk posed by the confluence of both was confirmed in the results Dr. Inzucchi reported.

The 157 HFrEF patients in the trial who developed diabetes had a statistically significant 70% increased incidence of all-cause mortality during the trial’s follow-up, compared with similar HFrEF patients who remained free from a diabetes diagnosis, and they also had a significant 77% relative increase in their incidence of cardiovascular death. This analysis failed to show that incident diabetes had a significant impact on hospitalizations for heart failure coupled with cardiovascular death, another endpoint of the trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“This is a tremendously important analysis. We recognize that diabetes is an important factor that can forecast heart failure risk, even over relatively short follow-up. A drug that targets both diseases can be quite beneficial,” commented Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The impact of dapagliflozin on average A1c levels during the DAPA-HF trial was minimal, reducing levels by an average of 0.04% among those who entered with prediabetes and by 0.05% among the other patients. This suggests that the mechanisms by which dapagliflozin reduced incident diabetes was by routes that did not involve simply reducing hyperglycemia, and the observed decrease in incident diabetes was not apparently caused by “masking” of hyperglycemia by dapagliflozin, said Dr. Inzucchi.

One possibility is that dapagliflozin, which also improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations in the DAPA-HF trial, led to improved function and mobility among patients that had beneficial effects on their insulin sensitivity, Dr. Vaduganathan speculated in an interview.

The new finding of dapagliflozin’s benefit “is great news,” commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif. “It’s an impressive and important result, and another reason to use dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, a group of patients whom you want to prevent from having worse outcomes” by developing diabetes.

The DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial enrolled HFrEF patients at 410 centers in 20 countries during February 2017–August 2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the composite incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, which occurred in 16.3% of patients randomized to receive dapagliflozin and in 21.2% of control patients on standard care but on placebo instead of the study drug, a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 26% (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). In the 2,605-patient subgroup without type 2 diabetes at baseline the primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin treatment, the first time an SGLT2 inhibitor drug was shown effective for reducing this endpoint in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. DAPA-HF did not enroll any patients with type 1 diabetes.

DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an adviser to AstraZeneca and to Amgen, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including AstraZeneca.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inzucchi SE et al. ADA 2020, abstract 271-OR.

Dapagliflozin treatment of patients with heart failure but without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial led to a one-third cut in the relative incidence of new-onset diabetes over a median follow-up of 18 months in a prespecified analysis from the multicenter trial that included 2,605 heart failure patients without diabetes at baseline.

The findings represented the first evidence that a drug from dapagliflozin’s class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, could prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes. It represents “an additional benefit” that dapagliflozin (Farxiga) offers to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) like those enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. DAPA-HF had previously proved that treatment with this drug significantly reduced the study’s primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure worsening.

During 18 months of follow-up, 7.1% of patients in the placebo arm developed type 2 diabetes, compared with 4.9% in those who received dapagliflozin, a 2.2% absolute difference and a 32% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant for this prespecified but “exploratory” endpoint, reported Dr. Inzucchi, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

For this analysis, a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 6.5% measured in two consecutive assessments was the criterion for diagnosing incident diabetes. The 2,605 enrolled patients without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial represented 55% of the entire trial cohort of 4,744 patients with HFrEF.

The 32% relative risk reduction for incident diabetes was primarily relevant to enrolled patients with prediabetes at entry, who constituted 67% of the enrolled cohort based on the usual definition of prediabetes, an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%.

Among all 157 (6%) of the DAPA-HF patients who developed diabetes during the trial, 150 (96%) occurred in patients with prediabetes by the usual definition; 136 of the incident cases (87%) had prediabetes by a more stringent criterion of an A1c of 6.0%-6.4%.

To put the preventive efficacy of dapagliflozin into more context, Dr. Inzucchi cited the 31% relative protection rate exerted by metformin in the Diabetes Prevention Program study (N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346[6]:393-403).

The findings showed that “dapagliflozin is the first medication demonstrated to reduce both incident type 2 diabetes and mortality in a single trial,” as well as the first agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to show a diabetes prevention effect, Dr. Inzucchi noted. Patients with both heart failure and diabetes are known to have a substantially increased mortality risk, compared with patients with just one of these diseases, and the potent risk posed by the confluence of both was confirmed in the results Dr. Inzucchi reported.

The 157 HFrEF patients in the trial who developed diabetes had a statistically significant 70% increased incidence of all-cause mortality during the trial’s follow-up, compared with similar HFrEF patients who remained free from a diabetes diagnosis, and they also had a significant 77% relative increase in their incidence of cardiovascular death. This analysis failed to show that incident diabetes had a significant impact on hospitalizations for heart failure coupled with cardiovascular death, another endpoint of the trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“This is a tremendously important analysis. We recognize that diabetes is an important factor that can forecast heart failure risk, even over relatively short follow-up. A drug that targets both diseases can be quite beneficial,” commented Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The impact of dapagliflozin on average A1c levels during the DAPA-HF trial was minimal, reducing levels by an average of 0.04% among those who entered with prediabetes and by 0.05% among the other patients. This suggests that the mechanisms by which dapagliflozin reduced incident diabetes was by routes that did not involve simply reducing hyperglycemia, and the observed decrease in incident diabetes was not apparently caused by “masking” of hyperglycemia by dapagliflozin, said Dr. Inzucchi.

One possibility is that dapagliflozin, which also improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations in the DAPA-HF trial, led to improved function and mobility among patients that had beneficial effects on their insulin sensitivity, Dr. Vaduganathan speculated in an interview.

The new finding of dapagliflozin’s benefit “is great news,” commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif. “It’s an impressive and important result, and another reason to use dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, a group of patients whom you want to prevent from having worse outcomes” by developing diabetes.

The DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial enrolled HFrEF patients at 410 centers in 20 countries during February 2017–August 2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the composite incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, which occurred in 16.3% of patients randomized to receive dapagliflozin and in 21.2% of control patients on standard care but on placebo instead of the study drug, a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 26% (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). In the 2,605-patient subgroup without type 2 diabetes at baseline the primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin treatment, the first time an SGLT2 inhibitor drug was shown effective for reducing this endpoint in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. DAPA-HF did not enroll any patients with type 1 diabetes.

DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an adviser to AstraZeneca and to Amgen, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including AstraZeneca.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inzucchi SE et al. ADA 2020, abstract 271-OR.

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.