Clinical Endocrinology News

Patients with diabetes may be at extra risk for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality, and doctors treating them need to keep up with the latest guidelines and expert advice.

Most health advisories about COVID-19 mention diabetes as one of the high-risk categories for the disease, likely because early data coming out of China, where the disease was first reported, indicated an elevated case-fatality rate for COVID-19 patients who also had diabetes.

In an article published in JAMA, Zunyou Wu, MD, and Jennifer M. McGoogan, PhD, summarized the findings from a February report on 44,672 confirmed cases of the disease from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall case-fatality rate (CFR) at that stage was 2.3% (1,023 deaths of the 44,672 confirmed cases). The data indicated that the CFR was elevated among COVID-19 patients with preexisting comorbid conditions, specifically, cardiovascular disease (CFR, 10.5%), diabetes (7.3%), chronic respiratory disease (6.3%), hypertension (6%), and cancer (5.6%).

The data also showed an aged-related trend in the CFR, with patients aged 80 years or older having a CFR of 14.8% and those aged 70-79 years, a rate of 8.0%, while there were no fatal cases reported in patients aged 9 years or younger (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).

Those findings have been echoed by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists have in turn referenced the CDC in their COVID-19 guidance recommendations for patients with diabetes.

Guidelines were already in place for treatment of infections in patients with diabetes, and at this stage, it seems that the same guidelines would extend to those patients who are also diagnosed with COVID-19, which is caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

In general, patients with diabetes – especially those whose disease is not controlled, or not well controlled – can be more susceptible to more common infections, such as influenza and pneumonia, possibly because hyperglycemia can subdue immunity by disrupting function of the white blood cells.
 

Glucose control is key

An important factor in any form of infection control in patients with diabetes seems to be whether or not a patient’s glucose levels are well controlled, according to comments from members of the editorial advisory board for Clinical Endocrinology News. Good glucose control, therefore, could be instrumental in reducing both the risk for and severity of infection.

Paul Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes & Endocrine Care, Hollywood, Fla., said that, over the years, he had not observed higher infection rates in general in patients with hemoglobin A_1c levels below 7, or even higher. However, “a bigger question for me, given the broad category of ‘diabetes’ listed as a risk for serious coronavirus complications by the CDC, has been: Just which individuals with diabetes are really at risk? Are patients with well-controlled diabetes at increased risk as much as those with significant hyperglycemia and uncontrolled diabetes? In my view, not likely.”

Alan Jay Cohen, MD, agreed with Dr. Jellinger. “Many patients have called the office in the last 10 days to ask if there are special precautions they should take because they are reading that they are in the high-risk group because they have diabetes. Many of them are in superb, or at least pretty good, control. I have not seen where they have had a higher incidence of infection than the general population, and I have not seen data with COVID-19 that specifically demonstrates that a person with diabetes in good control has an increased risk,” he said.

“My recommendations to these patients have been the same as those given to the general population,” added Dr. Cohen, medical director at Baptist Medical Group: The Endocrine Clinic, Memphis.

Herbert I. Rettinger, MD, also conceded that poorly controlled blood sugars and confounding illnesses, such as renal and cardiac conditions, are common in patients with long-standing diabetes, but “there is a huge population of patients with type 1 diabetes, and very few seem to be more susceptible to infection. Perhaps I am missing those with poor diet and glucose control.”

Philip Levy, MD, picked up on that latter point, emphasizing that “endocrinologists take care of fewer patients with diabetes than do primary care physicians. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are not seen by us unless the PCP has problems [treating them],” so it could be that PCPs may see a higher number of patients who are at a greater risk for infections.

Ultimately, “good glucose control is very helpful in avoiding infections,” said Dr. Levy, of the Banner University Medical Group Endocrinology & Diabetes, Phoenix.
 

For sick patients

Guidelines for patients at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston advise patients who are feeling sick to continue taking their diabetes medications, unless instructed otherwise by their providers, and to monitor their glucose more frequently because it can spike suddenly.

Patients with type 1 diabetes should check for ketones if their glucose passes 250 mg/dL, according to the guidelines, and patients should remain hydrated at all times and get plenty of rest.

“Sick-day guidelines definitely apply, but patients should be advised to get tested if they have any symptoms they are concerned about,” said Dr. Rettinger, of the Endocrinology Medical Group of Orange County, Orange, Calif.

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, according to Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues (Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Mar 10;14[3]:211-2. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.03.002).

Dr. Rettinger agreed, noting that home management would be feasible as long as “everything is going well, that is, the patient is not experiencing respiratory problems or difficulties in controlling glucose levels. Consider patients with type 1 diabetes who have COVID-19 as you would a nursing home patient – ever vigilant.”

Dr. Gupta and coauthors also recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve. However, the ADA warns in its guidelines that patients should “be aware that some constant glucose monitoring sensors (Dexcom G5, Medtronic Enlite, and Guardian) are impacted by acetaminophen (Tylenol), and that patients should check with finger sticks to ensure accuracy [if they are taking acetaminophen].”

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often, the authors wrote, cautioning that “frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia.” Dr Rettinger emphasized that “hyperglycemia, as always, is best treated with fluids and insulin and frequent checks of sugars to be sure the treatment regimen is successful.”

In regard to diabetic drug regimens, patients with type 1 or 2 disease should continue on their current medications, advised Yehuda Handelsman, MD. “Some, especially those on insulin, may require more of it. And the patient should increase fluid intake to prevent fluid depletion. We do not reduce antihyperglycemic medication to preserve fluids.

Preventive measures

In the interest of maintaining good glucose control, patients also should monitor their glucose levels more frequently so that fluctuations can be detected early and quickly addressed with the appropriate medication adjustments, according to guidelines from the ADA and AACE. They should continue to follow a healthy diet that includes adequate protein and they should exercise regularly.

Patients should ensure that they have enough medication and testing supplies – for at least 14 days, and longer, if costs permit – in case they have to go into quarantine.

General preventive measures, such as frequent hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing or coughing into a facial tissue or bent elbow, also apply for reducing the risk of infection. Touching of the face should be avoided, as should nonessential travel and contact with infected individuals.

Patients with diabetes should always be current with their influenza and pneumonia shots.

Dr. Rettinger said that he always recommends the following preventative measures to his patients and he is using the current health crisis to reinforce them:

• Eat lots of multicolored fruits and vegetables.
• Eat yogurt and take probiotics to keep the intestinal biome strong and functional.
• Be extra vigilant regarding sugars and sugar control to avoid peaks and valleys wherever possible.
• Keep the immune system strong with at least 7-8 hours sleep and reduce stress levels whenever possible.
• Avoid crowds and handshaking.
• Wash hands regularly.

Possible therapies

There are currently no drugs that have been approved specifically for the treatment of COVID-19, although a vaccine against the disease is currently under development.

Dr. Gupta and his colleagues noted in their article that there have been reports of the anecdotal use of antiviral drugs such as lopinavir, ritonavir, interferon-beta, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.

However, Dr. Handelsman said that, as far as he knows, none of these drugs has been shown to be beneficial for COVID-19. “Some [providers] have tried Tamiflu, but with no clear outcomes, and for severely sick patients, they tried medications for anti-HIV, hepatitis C, and malaria, but so far, there has been no breakthrough.”

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Handelsman, Dr. Jellinger, Dr. Levy, and Dr. Rettinger are members of the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Wu, and their colleagues, reported no conflicts of interest.

rmatthews@mdedge.com

Patients with diabetes may be at extra risk for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality, and doctors treating them need to keep up with the latest guidelines and expert advice.

Most health advisories about COVID-19 mention diabetes as one of the high-risk categories for the disease, likely because early data coming out of China, where the disease was first reported, indicated an elevated case-fatality rate for COVID-19 patients who also had diabetes.

In an article published in JAMA, Zunyou Wu, MD, and Jennifer M. McGoogan, PhD, summarized the findings from a February report on 44,672 confirmed cases of the disease from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall case-fatality rate (CFR) at that stage was 2.3% (1,023 deaths of the 44,672 confirmed cases). The data indicated that the CFR was elevated among COVID-19 patients with preexisting comorbid conditions, specifically, cardiovascular disease (CFR, 10.5%), diabetes (7.3%), chronic respiratory disease (6.3%), hypertension (6%), and cancer (5.6%).

The data also showed an aged-related trend in the CFR, with patients aged 80 years or older having a CFR of 14.8% and those aged 70-79 years, a rate of 8.0%, while there were no fatal cases reported in patients aged 9 years or younger (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).

Those findings have been echoed by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists have in turn referenced the CDC in their COVID-19 guidance recommendations for patients with diabetes.

Guidelines were already in place for treatment of infections in patients with diabetes, and at this stage, it seems that the same guidelines would extend to those patients who are also diagnosed with COVID-19, which is caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

In general, patients with diabetes – especially those whose disease is not controlled, or not well controlled – can be more susceptible to more common infections, such as influenza and pneumonia, possibly because hyperglycemia can subdue immunity by disrupting function of the white blood cells.
 

Glucose control is key

An important factor in any form of infection control in patients with diabetes seems to be whether or not a patient’s glucose levels are well controlled, according to comments from members of the editorial advisory board for Clinical Endocrinology News. Good glucose control, therefore, could be instrumental in reducing both the risk for and severity of infection.

Paul Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes & Endocrine Care, Hollywood, Fla., said that, over the years, he had not observed higher infection rates in general in patients with hemoglobin A_1c levels below 7, or even higher. However, “a bigger question for me, given the broad category of ‘diabetes’ listed as a risk for serious coronavirus complications by the CDC, has been: Just which individuals with diabetes are really at risk? Are patients with well-controlled diabetes at increased risk as much as those with significant hyperglycemia and uncontrolled diabetes? In my view, not likely.”

Alan Jay Cohen, MD, agreed with Dr. Jellinger. “Many patients have called the office in the last 10 days to ask if there are special precautions they should take because they are reading that they are in the high-risk group because they have diabetes. Many of them are in superb, or at least pretty good, control. I have not seen where they have had a higher incidence of infection than the general population, and I have not seen data with COVID-19 that specifically demonstrates that a person with diabetes in good control has an increased risk,” he said.

“My recommendations to these patients have been the same as those given to the general population,” added Dr. Cohen, medical director at Baptist Medical Group: The Endocrine Clinic, Memphis.

Herbert I. Rettinger, MD, also conceded that poorly controlled blood sugars and confounding illnesses, such as renal and cardiac conditions, are common in patients with long-standing diabetes, but “there is a huge population of patients with type 1 diabetes, and very few seem to be more susceptible to infection. Perhaps I am missing those with poor diet and glucose control.”

Philip Levy, MD, picked up on that latter point, emphasizing that “endocrinologists take care of fewer patients with diabetes than do primary care physicians. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are not seen by us unless the PCP has problems [treating them],” so it could be that PCPs may see a higher number of patients who are at a greater risk for infections.

Ultimately, “good glucose control is very helpful in avoiding infections,” said Dr. Levy, of the Banner University Medical Group Endocrinology & Diabetes, Phoenix.
 

For sick patients

Guidelines for patients at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston advise patients who are feeling sick to continue taking their diabetes medications, unless instructed otherwise by their providers, and to monitor their glucose more frequently because it can spike suddenly.

Patients with type 1 diabetes should check for ketones if their glucose passes 250 mg/dL, according to the guidelines, and patients should remain hydrated at all times and get plenty of rest.

“Sick-day guidelines definitely apply, but patients should be advised to get tested if they have any symptoms they are concerned about,” said Dr. Rettinger, of the Endocrinology Medical Group of Orange County, Orange, Calif.

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, according to Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues (Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Mar 10;14[3]:211-2. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.03.002).

Dr. Rettinger agreed, noting that home management would be feasible as long as “everything is going well, that is, the patient is not experiencing respiratory problems or difficulties in controlling glucose levels. Consider patients with type 1 diabetes who have COVID-19 as you would a nursing home patient – ever vigilant.”

Dr. Gupta and coauthors also recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve. However, the ADA warns in its guidelines that patients should “be aware that some constant glucose monitoring sensors (Dexcom G5, Medtronic Enlite, and Guardian) are impacted by acetaminophen (Tylenol), and that patients should check with finger sticks to ensure accuracy [if they are taking acetaminophen].”

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often, the authors wrote, cautioning that “frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia.” Dr Rettinger emphasized that “hyperglycemia, as always, is best treated with fluids and insulin and frequent checks of sugars to be sure the treatment regimen is successful.”

In regard to diabetic drug regimens, patients with type 1 or 2 disease should continue on their current medications, advised Yehuda Handelsman, MD. “Some, especially those on insulin, may require more of it. And the patient should increase fluid intake to prevent fluid depletion. We do not reduce antihyperglycemic medication to preserve fluids.

Preventive measures

In the interest of maintaining good glucose control, patients also should monitor their glucose levels more frequently so that fluctuations can be detected early and quickly addressed with the appropriate medication adjustments, according to guidelines from the ADA and AACE. They should continue to follow a healthy diet that includes adequate protein and they should exercise regularly.

Patients should ensure that they have enough medication and testing supplies – for at least 14 days, and longer, if costs permit – in case they have to go into quarantine.

General preventive measures, such as frequent hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing or coughing into a facial tissue or bent elbow, also apply for reducing the risk of infection. Touching of the face should be avoided, as should nonessential travel and contact with infected individuals.

Patients with diabetes should always be current with their influenza and pneumonia shots.

Dr. Rettinger said that he always recommends the following preventative measures to his patients and he is using the current health crisis to reinforce them:

• Eat lots of multicolored fruits and vegetables.
• Eat yogurt and take probiotics to keep the intestinal biome strong and functional.
• Be extra vigilant regarding sugars and sugar control to avoid peaks and valleys wherever possible.
• Keep the immune system strong with at least 7-8 hours sleep and reduce stress levels whenever possible.
• Avoid crowds and handshaking.
• Wash hands regularly.

Possible therapies

There are currently no drugs that have been approved specifically for the treatment of COVID-19, although a vaccine against the disease is currently under development.

Dr. Gupta and his colleagues noted in their article that there have been reports of the anecdotal use of antiviral drugs such as lopinavir, ritonavir, interferon-beta, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.

However, Dr. Handelsman said that, as far as he knows, none of these drugs has been shown to be beneficial for COVID-19. “Some [providers] have tried Tamiflu, but with no clear outcomes, and for severely sick patients, they tried medications for anti-HIV, hepatitis C, and malaria, but so far, there has been no breakthrough.”

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Handelsman, Dr. Jellinger, Dr. Levy, and Dr. Rettinger are members of the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Wu, and their colleagues, reported no conflicts of interest.

rmatthews@mdedge.com

Patients with diabetes may be at extra risk for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality, and doctors treating them need to keep up with the latest guidelines and expert advice.

Most health advisories about COVID-19 mention diabetes as one of the high-risk categories for the disease, likely because early data coming out of China, where the disease was first reported, indicated an elevated case-fatality rate for COVID-19 patients who also had diabetes.

In an article published in JAMA, Zunyou Wu, MD, and Jennifer M. McGoogan, PhD, summarized the findings from a February report on 44,672 confirmed cases of the disease from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall case-fatality rate (CFR) at that stage was 2.3% (1,023 deaths of the 44,672 confirmed cases). The data indicated that the CFR was elevated among COVID-19 patients with preexisting comorbid conditions, specifically, cardiovascular disease (CFR, 10.5%), diabetes (7.3%), chronic respiratory disease (6.3%), hypertension (6%), and cancer (5.6%).

The data also showed an aged-related trend in the CFR, with patients aged 80 years or older having a CFR of 14.8% and those aged 70-79 years, a rate of 8.0%, while there were no fatal cases reported in patients aged 9 years or younger (JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648).

Those findings have been echoed by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists have in turn referenced the CDC in their COVID-19 guidance recommendations for patients with diabetes.

Guidelines were already in place for treatment of infections in patients with diabetes, and at this stage, it seems that the same guidelines would extend to those patients who are also diagnosed with COVID-19, which is caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

In general, patients with diabetes – especially those whose disease is not controlled, or not well controlled – can be more susceptible to more common infections, such as influenza and pneumonia, possibly because hyperglycemia can subdue immunity by disrupting function of the white blood cells.
 

Glucose control is key

An important factor in any form of infection control in patients with diabetes seems to be whether or not a patient’s glucose levels are well controlled, according to comments from members of the editorial advisory board for Clinical Endocrinology News. Good glucose control, therefore, could be instrumental in reducing both the risk for and severity of infection.

Paul Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes & Endocrine Care, Hollywood, Fla., said that, over the years, he had not observed higher infection rates in general in patients with hemoglobin A_1c levels below 7, or even higher. However, “a bigger question for me, given the broad category of ‘diabetes’ listed as a risk for serious coronavirus complications by the CDC, has been: Just which individuals with diabetes are really at risk? Are patients with well-controlled diabetes at increased risk as much as those with significant hyperglycemia and uncontrolled diabetes? In my view, not likely.”

Alan Jay Cohen, MD, agreed with Dr. Jellinger. “Many patients have called the office in the last 10 days to ask if there are special precautions they should take because they are reading that they are in the high-risk group because they have diabetes. Many of them are in superb, or at least pretty good, control. I have not seen where they have had a higher incidence of infection than the general population, and I have not seen data with COVID-19 that specifically demonstrates that a person with diabetes in good control has an increased risk,” he said.

“My recommendations to these patients have been the same as those given to the general population,” added Dr. Cohen, medical director at Baptist Medical Group: The Endocrine Clinic, Memphis.

Herbert I. Rettinger, MD, also conceded that poorly controlled blood sugars and confounding illnesses, such as renal and cardiac conditions, are common in patients with long-standing diabetes, but “there is a huge population of patients with type 1 diabetes, and very few seem to be more susceptible to infection. Perhaps I am missing those with poor diet and glucose control.”

Philip Levy, MD, picked up on that latter point, emphasizing that “endocrinologists take care of fewer patients with diabetes than do primary care physicians. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are not seen by us unless the PCP has problems [treating them],” so it could be that PCPs may see a higher number of patients who are at a greater risk for infections.

Ultimately, “good glucose control is very helpful in avoiding infections,” said Dr. Levy, of the Banner University Medical Group Endocrinology & Diabetes, Phoenix.
 

For sick patients

Guidelines for patients at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston advise patients who are feeling sick to continue taking their diabetes medications, unless instructed otherwise by their providers, and to monitor their glucose more frequently because it can spike suddenly.

Patients with type 1 diabetes should check for ketones if their glucose passes 250 mg/dL, according to the guidelines, and patients should remain hydrated at all times and get plenty of rest.

“Sick-day guidelines definitely apply, but patients should be advised to get tested if they have any symptoms they are concerned about,” said Dr. Rettinger, of the Endocrinology Medical Group of Orange County, Orange, Calif.

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, according to Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues (Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Mar 10;14[3]:211-2. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.03.002).

Dr. Rettinger agreed, noting that home management would be feasible as long as “everything is going well, that is, the patient is not experiencing respiratory problems or difficulties in controlling glucose levels. Consider patients with type 1 diabetes who have COVID-19 as you would a nursing home patient – ever vigilant.”

Dr. Gupta and coauthors also recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve. However, the ADA warns in its guidelines that patients should “be aware that some constant glucose monitoring sensors (Dexcom G5, Medtronic Enlite, and Guardian) are impacted by acetaminophen (Tylenol), and that patients should check with finger sticks to ensure accuracy [if they are taking acetaminophen].”

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often, the authors wrote, cautioning that “frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia.” Dr Rettinger emphasized that “hyperglycemia, as always, is best treated with fluids and insulin and frequent checks of sugars to be sure the treatment regimen is successful.”

In regard to diabetic drug regimens, patients with type 1 or 2 disease should continue on their current medications, advised Yehuda Handelsman, MD. “Some, especially those on insulin, may require more of it. And the patient should increase fluid intake to prevent fluid depletion. We do not reduce antihyperglycemic medication to preserve fluids.

Preventive measures

In the interest of maintaining good glucose control, patients also should monitor their glucose levels more frequently so that fluctuations can be detected early and quickly addressed with the appropriate medication adjustments, according to guidelines from the ADA and AACE. They should continue to follow a healthy diet that includes adequate protein and they should exercise regularly.

Patients should ensure that they have enough medication and testing supplies – for at least 14 days, and longer, if costs permit – in case they have to go into quarantine.

General preventive measures, such as frequent hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing or coughing into a facial tissue or bent elbow, also apply for reducing the risk of infection. Touching of the face should be avoided, as should nonessential travel and contact with infected individuals.

Patients with diabetes should always be current with their influenza and pneumonia shots.

Dr. Rettinger said that he always recommends the following preventative measures to his patients and he is using the current health crisis to reinforce them:

• Eat lots of multicolored fruits and vegetables.
• Eat yogurt and take probiotics to keep the intestinal biome strong and functional.
• Be extra vigilant regarding sugars and sugar control to avoid peaks and valleys wherever possible.
• Keep the immune system strong with at least 7-8 hours sleep and reduce stress levels whenever possible.
• Avoid crowds and handshaking.
• Wash hands regularly.

Possible therapies

There are currently no drugs that have been approved specifically for the treatment of COVID-19, although a vaccine against the disease is currently under development.

Dr. Gupta and his colleagues noted in their article that there have been reports of the anecdotal use of antiviral drugs such as lopinavir, ritonavir, interferon-beta, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and chloroquine.

However, Dr. Handelsman said that, as far as he knows, none of these drugs has been shown to be beneficial for COVID-19. “Some [providers] have tried Tamiflu, but with no clear outcomes, and for severely sick patients, they tried medications for anti-HIV, hepatitis C, and malaria, but so far, there has been no breakthrough.”

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Handelsman, Dr. Jellinger, Dr. Levy, and Dr. Rettinger are members of the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Wu, and their colleagues, reported no conflicts of interest.

rmatthews@mdedge.com

Patients with diabetes may have an increased risk of developing coronavirus infection (COVID-19), along with increased risks of morbidity and mortality, according to researchers writing in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome.

Although relevant clinical data remain scarce, patients with diabetes should take extra precautions to avoid infection and, if infected, may require special care, reported Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“The disease severity [with COVID-19] has varied from mild, self-limiting, flu-like illness to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death,” the authors wrote.

As of March 16, 2020, the World Health Organization reported 167,515 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,606 deaths from around the world, with a mortality rate of 3.9%. But the actual mortality rate may be lower, the authors suggested, because a study involving more than 1,000 confirmed cases reported a mortality rate of 1.4%.

“Considering that the number of unreported and unconfirmed cases is likely to be much higher than the reported cases, the actual mortality may be less than 1%, which is similar to that of severe seasonal influenza,” the authors said, in reference to an editorial by Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, they noted, mortality rates may vary by region.

The largest study relevant to patients with diabetes, which involved 72,314 cases of COVID-19, showed that patients with diabetes had a threefold higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes (7.3% vs. 2.3%, respectively). These figures were reported by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, data from smaller cohorts with diabetes and COVID-19 have yielded mixed results. For instance, one study, involving 140 patients from Wuhan, suggested that diabetes was not a risk factor for severe disease, and in an analysis of 11 studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, raised blood sugar levels or diabetes were not mentioned among the predictors of severe disease.

“Our knowledge about the prevalence of COVID-19 and disease course in people with diabetes will evolve as more detailed analyses are carried out,” the authors wrote. “For now, it is reasonable to assume that people with diabetes are at increased risk of developing infection. Coexisting heart disease, kidney disease, advanced age, and frailty are likely to further increase the severity of disease.”
 

Prevention first

“It is important that people with diabetes maintain good glycemic control, because it might help in reducing the risk of infection and the severity,” the authors wrote.

In addition to more frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels, they recommended other preventive measures, such as getting adequate nutrition, exercising, and being current with vaccinations for influenza and pneumonia. The latter, they said, may also reduce the risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia after a respiratory viral infection.

In regard to nutrition, adequate protein intake is important and “any deficiencies of minerals and vitamins need to be taken care of,” they advised. Likewise, exercise is known to improve immunity and should continue, but they suggest avoiding gyms and swimming pools.

For patients with coexisting heart and/or kidney disease, they also recommended efforts to stabilize cardiac/renal status.

In addition, the general preventive measures, such as regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing and coughing into a bent elbow or a facial tissue, and avoiding contact with anyone who is infected, should be observed.

As with other patients with chronic diseases that are managed long-term medications, patients with diabetes should always ensure that they have a sufficient supply of their medications and refills, if possible.
 

After a diagnosis

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, wrote the authors, who recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve.

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often. “Frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia,” they cautioned.

Concerning diabetic drug regimens, they suggest patients avoid antihyperglycemic agents that can cause volume depletion or hypoglycemia and, if necessary, that they reduce oral antidiabetic drugs and follow sick-day guidelines.

For hospitalized patients, the investigators strengthened that statement, advising that oral agents need to be stopped, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin. “Insulin is the preferred agent for control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized sick patients,” they wrote.

Untested therapies

The authors also discussed a range of untested therapies that may help fight COVID-19, such as antiviral drugs (such as lopinavir and ritonavir), zinc nanoparticles, and vitamin C. Supplementing those recommendations, Dr. Gupta and colleagues provided a concise review of COVID-19 epidemiology and extant data relevant to patients with diabetes.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(3):211-12.

Patients with diabetes may have an increased risk of developing coronavirus infection (COVID-19), along with increased risks of morbidity and mortality, according to researchers writing in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome.

Although relevant clinical data remain scarce, patients with diabetes should take extra precautions to avoid infection and, if infected, may require special care, reported Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“The disease severity [with COVID-19] has varied from mild, self-limiting, flu-like illness to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death,” the authors wrote.

As of March 16, 2020, the World Health Organization reported 167,515 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,606 deaths from around the world, with a mortality rate of 3.9%. But the actual mortality rate may be lower, the authors suggested, because a study involving more than 1,000 confirmed cases reported a mortality rate of 1.4%.

“Considering that the number of unreported and unconfirmed cases is likely to be much higher than the reported cases, the actual mortality may be less than 1%, which is similar to that of severe seasonal influenza,” the authors said, in reference to an editorial by Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, they noted, mortality rates may vary by region.

The largest study relevant to patients with diabetes, which involved 72,314 cases of COVID-19, showed that patients with diabetes had a threefold higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes (7.3% vs. 2.3%, respectively). These figures were reported by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, data from smaller cohorts with diabetes and COVID-19 have yielded mixed results. For instance, one study, involving 140 patients from Wuhan, suggested that diabetes was not a risk factor for severe disease, and in an analysis of 11 studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, raised blood sugar levels or diabetes were not mentioned among the predictors of severe disease.

“Our knowledge about the prevalence of COVID-19 and disease course in people with diabetes will evolve as more detailed analyses are carried out,” the authors wrote. “For now, it is reasonable to assume that people with diabetes are at increased risk of developing infection. Coexisting heart disease, kidney disease, advanced age, and frailty are likely to further increase the severity of disease.”
 

Prevention first

“It is important that people with diabetes maintain good glycemic control, because it might help in reducing the risk of infection and the severity,” the authors wrote.

In addition to more frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels, they recommended other preventive measures, such as getting adequate nutrition, exercising, and being current with vaccinations for influenza and pneumonia. The latter, they said, may also reduce the risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia after a respiratory viral infection.

In regard to nutrition, adequate protein intake is important and “any deficiencies of minerals and vitamins need to be taken care of,” they advised. Likewise, exercise is known to improve immunity and should continue, but they suggest avoiding gyms and swimming pools.

For patients with coexisting heart and/or kidney disease, they also recommended efforts to stabilize cardiac/renal status.

In addition, the general preventive measures, such as regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing and coughing into a bent elbow or a facial tissue, and avoiding contact with anyone who is infected, should be observed.

As with other patients with chronic diseases that are managed long-term medications, patients with diabetes should always ensure that they have a sufficient supply of their medications and refills, if possible.
 

After a diagnosis

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, wrote the authors, who recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve.

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often. “Frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia,” they cautioned.

Concerning diabetic drug regimens, they suggest patients avoid antihyperglycemic agents that can cause volume depletion or hypoglycemia and, if necessary, that they reduce oral antidiabetic drugs and follow sick-day guidelines.

For hospitalized patients, the investigators strengthened that statement, advising that oral agents need to be stopped, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin. “Insulin is the preferred agent for control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized sick patients,” they wrote.

Untested therapies

The authors also discussed a range of untested therapies that may help fight COVID-19, such as antiviral drugs (such as lopinavir and ritonavir), zinc nanoparticles, and vitamin C. Supplementing those recommendations, Dr. Gupta and colleagues provided a concise review of COVID-19 epidemiology and extant data relevant to patients with diabetes.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(3):211-12.

Patients with diabetes may have an increased risk of developing coronavirus infection (COVID-19), along with increased risks of morbidity and mortality, according to researchers writing in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome.

Although relevant clinical data remain scarce, patients with diabetes should take extra precautions to avoid infection and, if infected, may require special care, reported Ritesh Gupta, MD, of Fortis C-DOC Hospital, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“The disease severity [with COVID-19] has varied from mild, self-limiting, flu-like illness to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death,” the authors wrote.

As of March 16, 2020, the World Health Organization reported 167,515 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 6,606 deaths from around the world, with a mortality rate of 3.9%. But the actual mortality rate may be lower, the authors suggested, because a study involving more than 1,000 confirmed cases reported a mortality rate of 1.4%.

“Considering that the number of unreported and unconfirmed cases is likely to be much higher than the reported cases, the actual mortality may be less than 1%, which is similar to that of severe seasonal influenza,” the authors said, in reference to an editorial by Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, they noted, mortality rates may vary by region.

The largest study relevant to patients with diabetes, which involved 72,314 cases of COVID-19, showed that patients with diabetes had a threefold higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes (7.3% vs. 2.3%, respectively). These figures were reported by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, data from smaller cohorts with diabetes and COVID-19 have yielded mixed results. For instance, one study, involving 140 patients from Wuhan, suggested that diabetes was not a risk factor for severe disease, and in an analysis of 11 studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, raised blood sugar levels or diabetes were not mentioned among the predictors of severe disease.

“Our knowledge about the prevalence of COVID-19 and disease course in people with diabetes will evolve as more detailed analyses are carried out,” the authors wrote. “For now, it is reasonable to assume that people with diabetes are at increased risk of developing infection. Coexisting heart disease, kidney disease, advanced age, and frailty are likely to further increase the severity of disease.”
 

Prevention first

“It is important that people with diabetes maintain good glycemic control, because it might help in reducing the risk of infection and the severity,” the authors wrote.

In addition to more frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels, they recommended other preventive measures, such as getting adequate nutrition, exercising, and being current with vaccinations for influenza and pneumonia. The latter, they said, may also reduce the risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia after a respiratory viral infection.

In regard to nutrition, adequate protein intake is important and “any deficiencies of minerals and vitamins need to be taken care of,” they advised. Likewise, exercise is known to improve immunity and should continue, but they suggest avoiding gyms and swimming pools.

For patients with coexisting heart and/or kidney disease, they also recommended efforts to stabilize cardiac/renal status.

In addition, the general preventive measures, such as regular and thorough hand washing with soap and water, practicing good respiratory hygiene by sneezing and coughing into a bent elbow or a facial tissue, and avoiding contact with anyone who is infected, should be observed.

As with other patients with chronic diseases that are managed long-term medications, patients with diabetes should always ensure that they have a sufficient supply of their medications and refills, if possible.
 

After a diagnosis

If patients with diabetes develop COVID-19, then home management may still be possible, wrote the authors, who recommended basic treatment measures such as maintaining hydration and managing symptoms with acetaminophen and steam inhalation, and home isolation for 14 days or until the symptoms resolve.

In the event of hyperglycemia with fever in patients with type 1 diabetes, blood glucose and urinary ketones should be monitored often. “Frequent changes in dosage and correctional bolus may be required to maintain normoglycemia,” they cautioned.

Concerning diabetic drug regimens, they suggest patients avoid antihyperglycemic agents that can cause volume depletion or hypoglycemia and, if necessary, that they reduce oral antidiabetic drugs and follow sick-day guidelines.

For hospitalized patients, the investigators strengthened that statement, advising that oral agents need to be stopped, particularly sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin. “Insulin is the preferred agent for control of hyperglycemia in hospitalized sick patients,” they wrote.

Untested therapies

The authors also discussed a range of untested therapies that may help fight COVID-19, such as antiviral drugs (such as lopinavir and ritonavir), zinc nanoparticles, and vitamin C. Supplementing those recommendations, Dr. Gupta and colleagues provided a concise review of COVID-19 epidemiology and extant data relevant to patients with diabetes.

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gupta et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(3):211-12.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Implementation of fracture liaison services (FLS) at two Swedish hospitals was associated with an 18% reduction of recurrent fracture over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, results from an observational cohort study found.

“Patients receiving fracture care within an FLS have higher rates of [bone mineral density] testing, treatment initiation and better adherence,” first author Kristian F. Axelsson, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. “However, the evidence regarding FLS and association to reduced risk of recurrent fracture is insufficient, consisting of smaller studies, studies with short follow-up time, and studies with high risk of various biases.”

Dr. Axelsson, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Skaraborg Hospital, Skövde, Sweden, and colleagues used electronic patient records from four hospitals in Western Sweden to identify all patients aged 50 years or older with a major osteoporotic fracture – defined as a fracture of the wrist, upper arm, hip, vertebra, or pelvis – between 2012 and 2017. The study population consisted of 15,449 patients from two hospitals with FLS and 5,634 patients from two hospitals with no FLS. The researchers used multivariable Cox models to compare all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture during the FLS period with all patients with a major osteoporotic fracture prior to the FLS implementation. The FLS hospitals and non-FLS hospitals were analyzed separately using the same methodology.

The mean age of patients was 74 years, 76% were female, and the most common index fracture site was the wrist (42%). In the hospitals with FLS, the researchers observed 1,247 recurrent fractures during a median follow-up time of 2.2 years. In an unadjusted Cox model, the risk of recurrent fracture was 18% lower in the FLS period, compared with the control period (hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .001). This corresponded to a 3-year number needed to screen of 61, and did not change after adjustment for clinical risk factors. In the non-FLS hospitals, no change in recurrent fracture rate was observed.

Osteoporosis medication treatment rates after fracture did not differ between the FLS and non-FLS hospitals, prior to FLS implementation (14.7% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = .10). However, following FLS implementation, a larger proportion of fracture patients were treated at the FLS hospitals, compared with those at the non-FLS hospitals (28% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001).

“Our study is the largest yet, including both historic controls and controls at nearby hospitals without implementations of fracture liaison services,” one of the study authors, Mattias Lorentzon, MD, said in an interview. “We were able to rule out temporal trends in refracture risk and show that, [in] patients who had an index fracture at a hospital with an FLS, the refracture rate was lower than for patients who had an index fracture before the FLS was started, indicating that FLS reduce the risk of recurrent fracture. No such trends were observed in hospitals without FLS during the same time period.”

Dr. Lorentzon, head of geriatric medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden, said that FLS implementation “led to a large increase in the use of osteoporosis medication, which we believe is the reason for the reduction in recurrent fracture risk observed. We believe that our results provide solid evidence that FLS implementation can reduce the rate of recurrent fractures, suggesting that all hospitals treating fracture patients should have fracture liaison services.”

In an interview, Stuart L. Silverman, MD, said that the study adds to compelling data on the efficacy and need for patients with clinical fracture to have case management by a FLS. “We recognize that near term risk is substantial in the year following a fracture,” said Dr. Silverman, who is clinical professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the University of California, Los Angeles, and is not affiliated with the Swedish study. “For example, the risk of a subsequent fracture after hip fracture is 8.3%, which is similar to the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction after an initial acute MI. However, only 23% of patients receive osteoporosis medication after a hip fracture. Yet a fracture is to osteoporosis what an acute MI is to cardiovascular disease. We recognize that men and women age 65 years and older who have suffered a hip or vertebral fracture should be evaluated for treatment, as this subpopulation is at high risk for a second fracture and evidence supporting treatment efficacy is robust. We need a multidisciplinary clinical system which includes case management such as a fracture liaison service. We know FLS can reduce hip fracture rate in a closed system such as Kaiser by over 40%. This manuscript addresses the utility of a FLS in terms of reducing risk of future fracture.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that patients prior to the FLS period were fewer and had longer follow-up time, compared with patients during the FLS period.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council and by grants from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Dr. Axelsson reported that he has received lecture fees from Lilly, Meda/Mylan, and Amgen. Dr. Lorentzon has received lecture fees from Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Radius Health, Meda, GE-Lunar, and Santax Medico/Hologic. The other coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman reported that he is a member of the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Radius. He is also a consultant for Lilly, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received research grants from Radius and Amgen.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Axelsson K et al. J Bone Min Res. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3990.

Two observational studies link better cardiovascular health (CVH) in childhood and midlife to reduced CV mortality and subclinical atherosclerosis in later life. Though many studies have examined CVH and CV mortality in later life, the two studies, published in JAMA Cardiology, examine longitudinal CVH and could inform lifestyle modification.

Together, the studies lend support to the American Heart Association 2010 Strategic Initiative, which put an emphasis on health promotion in children rather than CV disease prevention, Erica Spatz, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Spatz pointed out that CV disease prevention can be a tough sell, especially in younger patients for whom the threat of heart disease is distant. These studies and others like them could capture evolving risk factors through patients’ lives, and connect them to current lifestyle and experiences. Such data could overcome barriers to behavioral change and lead to more personalized interventions, she wrote.
 

Framingham Offspring Study

One study, led by Vanessa Xanthakis, PhD, of Boston University, examined the relationship between the length of time during midlife spent in ideal CVH and various CV disease and mortality outcomes at the final examination.

The prospective study included 1,445 participants (mean age 60 years, 52% women) from a Framingham Heart Study Offspring investigation based in Massachusetts. The subjects had completed seven examinations. The current study ranged from 1991 to 2015, and encompassed the fifth, sixth, and seventh examinations. Researchers calculated CVH scores based on resting blood pressure, height, weight, total cholesterol level, fasting blood glucose level, smoking status, diet, and physical activity.

At the seventh examination, 39% of participants had poor CVH scores and 54% had intermediate scores. For each 5-year period of intermediate or ideal CVH (compared with poor) measured in previous examinations, during the follow-up period after the seventh examination, there was an associated reduction in risk for adverse outcomes including incident hypertension (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 056-0.80), diabetes (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89), CV disease (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.85), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97).

“Our results indicated that living longer in adulthood with better CVH may be potentially beneficial regardless of age because we did not observe statistically significant effect modification by age of the associations between duration in a given CVH score category and any outcome. Overall, our findings support the importance of promoting healthy behaviors throughout the life course,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by several factors. Diet and physical activity were self-reported, and about half of participants were excluded after missing an examination, which could introduce bias.
 

International cohort study

The second study analyzed data from 9,388 individuals in five prospective cohorts in the United States and Finland. During 1973-2015, it tracked participants from childhood through middle age (age 8-55 years), linking CVH measures to subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in middle age. Led by Norrina Allen, PhD, of the Northwestern University, Chicago, the researchers measured body mass index, total cholesterol level, blood pressure, glucose level, diet, physical activity, and smoking status during a minimum of three examinations. Based on those data, they classified participants as having ideal, intermediate, or poor CVH.

The researchers grouped the participants into five CVH trajectories: High-late decline, which started with high CVH scores at age 8 and maintained them through early adulthood (16%); high-moderate decline (high early scores, moderate decline; 26%); high-early decline (high early scores, early-life decline; 32%); intermediate-late decline (intermediate initial scores, late decline; 16%); and intermediate-early decline (10%). CVH stratification began early: At age 8, 25% of individuals had intermediate CVH scores.

After adjustment for demographics and baseline smoking, diet, and physical activity, the high-late decline CVH group had the smallest mean cIMT value (0.64 mm; 95 % CI, 0.63-0.65 mm), while the intermediate-early decline group, which had the poorest CVH, had the largest (0.72 mm; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76 mm; P less than .001). The relationship was the same even after adjustment for baseline or proximal CVH scores, showing that the trajectory of CVH scores was driving the measure of subclinical atherosclerosis.

“Although it remains important to provide treatment to individuals with elevated risk factor levels, the most effective way to reduce the burden of future CV disease may be to prevent the development of those CV disease risk factors, an approach termed primordial prevention. There is a large body of literature showing effective interventions that may help individuals maintain ideal CV health. Our findings suggest that these interventions are critical and should be implemented early in life to prevent the loss of CVH and future CV [disease] development,” the authors wrote.

The study’s limitations include the fact that analyzed cohorts were drawn from studies with varying protocols and CVH measurement methods. It is also limited by its observational nature.

The two studies were funded by a range of nonindustry sources.

SOURCES: Allen N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0140; Corlin N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0109.

Two observational studies link better cardiovascular health (CVH) in childhood and midlife to reduced CV mortality and subclinical atherosclerosis in later life. Though many studies have examined CVH and CV mortality in later life, the two studies, published in JAMA Cardiology, examine longitudinal CVH and could inform lifestyle modification.

Together, the studies lend support to the American Heart Association 2010 Strategic Initiative, which put an emphasis on health promotion in children rather than CV disease prevention, Erica Spatz, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Spatz pointed out that CV disease prevention can be a tough sell, especially in younger patients for whom the threat of heart disease is distant. These studies and others like them could capture evolving risk factors through patients’ lives, and connect them to current lifestyle and experiences. Such data could overcome barriers to behavioral change and lead to more personalized interventions, she wrote.
 

Framingham Offspring Study

One study, led by Vanessa Xanthakis, PhD, of Boston University, examined the relationship between the length of time during midlife spent in ideal CVH and various CV disease and mortality outcomes at the final examination.

The prospective study included 1,445 participants (mean age 60 years, 52% women) from a Framingham Heart Study Offspring investigation based in Massachusetts. The subjects had completed seven examinations. The current study ranged from 1991 to 2015, and encompassed the fifth, sixth, and seventh examinations. Researchers calculated CVH scores based on resting blood pressure, height, weight, total cholesterol level, fasting blood glucose level, smoking status, diet, and physical activity.

At the seventh examination, 39% of participants had poor CVH scores and 54% had intermediate scores. For each 5-year period of intermediate or ideal CVH (compared with poor) measured in previous examinations, during the follow-up period after the seventh examination, there was an associated reduction in risk for adverse outcomes including incident hypertension (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 056-0.80), diabetes (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89), CV disease (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.85), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97).

“Our results indicated that living longer in adulthood with better CVH may be potentially beneficial regardless of age because we did not observe statistically significant effect modification by age of the associations between duration in a given CVH score category and any outcome. Overall, our findings support the importance of promoting healthy behaviors throughout the life course,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by several factors. Diet and physical activity were self-reported, and about half of participants were excluded after missing an examination, which could introduce bias.
 

International cohort study

The second study analyzed data from 9,388 individuals in five prospective cohorts in the United States and Finland. During 1973-2015, it tracked participants from childhood through middle age (age 8-55 years), linking CVH measures to subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in middle age. Led by Norrina Allen, PhD, of the Northwestern University, Chicago, the researchers measured body mass index, total cholesterol level, blood pressure, glucose level, diet, physical activity, and smoking status during a minimum of three examinations. Based on those data, they classified participants as having ideal, intermediate, or poor CVH.

The researchers grouped the participants into five CVH trajectories: High-late decline, which started with high CVH scores at age 8 and maintained them through early adulthood (16%); high-moderate decline (high early scores, moderate decline; 26%); high-early decline (high early scores, early-life decline; 32%); intermediate-late decline (intermediate initial scores, late decline; 16%); and intermediate-early decline (10%). CVH stratification began early: At age 8, 25% of individuals had intermediate CVH scores.

After adjustment for demographics and baseline smoking, diet, and physical activity, the high-late decline CVH group had the smallest mean cIMT value (0.64 mm; 95 % CI, 0.63-0.65 mm), while the intermediate-early decline group, which had the poorest CVH, had the largest (0.72 mm; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76 mm; P less than .001). The relationship was the same even after adjustment for baseline or proximal CVH scores, showing that the trajectory of CVH scores was driving the measure of subclinical atherosclerosis.

“Although it remains important to provide treatment to individuals with elevated risk factor levels, the most effective way to reduce the burden of future CV disease may be to prevent the development of those CV disease risk factors, an approach termed primordial prevention. There is a large body of literature showing effective interventions that may help individuals maintain ideal CV health. Our findings suggest that these interventions are critical and should be implemented early in life to prevent the loss of CVH and future CV [disease] development,” the authors wrote.

The study’s limitations include the fact that analyzed cohorts were drawn from studies with varying protocols and CVH measurement methods. It is also limited by its observational nature.

The two studies were funded by a range of nonindustry sources.

SOURCES: Allen N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0140; Corlin N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0109.

Two observational studies link better cardiovascular health (CVH) in childhood and midlife to reduced CV mortality and subclinical atherosclerosis in later life. Though many studies have examined CVH and CV mortality in later life, the two studies, published in JAMA Cardiology, examine longitudinal CVH and could inform lifestyle modification.

Together, the studies lend support to the American Heart Association 2010 Strategic Initiative, which put an emphasis on health promotion in children rather than CV disease prevention, Erica Spatz, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Spatz pointed out that CV disease prevention can be a tough sell, especially in younger patients for whom the threat of heart disease is distant. These studies and others like them could capture evolving risk factors through patients’ lives, and connect them to current lifestyle and experiences. Such data could overcome barriers to behavioral change and lead to more personalized interventions, she wrote.
 

Framingham Offspring Study

One study, led by Vanessa Xanthakis, PhD, of Boston University, examined the relationship between the length of time during midlife spent in ideal CVH and various CV disease and mortality outcomes at the final examination.

The prospective study included 1,445 participants (mean age 60 years, 52% women) from a Framingham Heart Study Offspring investigation based in Massachusetts. The subjects had completed seven examinations. The current study ranged from 1991 to 2015, and encompassed the fifth, sixth, and seventh examinations. Researchers calculated CVH scores based on resting blood pressure, height, weight, total cholesterol level, fasting blood glucose level, smoking status, diet, and physical activity.

At the seventh examination, 39% of participants had poor CVH scores and 54% had intermediate scores. For each 5-year period of intermediate or ideal CVH (compared with poor) measured in previous examinations, during the follow-up period after the seventh examination, there was an associated reduction in risk for adverse outcomes including incident hypertension (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 056-0.80), diabetes (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89), CV disease (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.85), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97).

“Our results indicated that living longer in adulthood with better CVH may be potentially beneficial regardless of age because we did not observe statistically significant effect modification by age of the associations between duration in a given CVH score category and any outcome. Overall, our findings support the importance of promoting healthy behaviors throughout the life course,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by several factors. Diet and physical activity were self-reported, and about half of participants were excluded after missing an examination, which could introduce bias.
 

International cohort study

The second study analyzed data from 9,388 individuals in five prospective cohorts in the United States and Finland. During 1973-2015, it tracked participants from childhood through middle age (age 8-55 years), linking CVH measures to subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in middle age. Led by Norrina Allen, PhD, of the Northwestern University, Chicago, the researchers measured body mass index, total cholesterol level, blood pressure, glucose level, diet, physical activity, and smoking status during a minimum of three examinations. Based on those data, they classified participants as having ideal, intermediate, or poor CVH.

The researchers grouped the participants into five CVH trajectories: High-late decline, which started with high CVH scores at age 8 and maintained them through early adulthood (16%); high-moderate decline (high early scores, moderate decline; 26%); high-early decline (high early scores, early-life decline; 32%); intermediate-late decline (intermediate initial scores, late decline; 16%); and intermediate-early decline (10%). CVH stratification began early: At age 8, 25% of individuals had intermediate CVH scores.

After adjustment for demographics and baseline smoking, diet, and physical activity, the high-late decline CVH group had the smallest mean cIMT value (0.64 mm; 95 % CI, 0.63-0.65 mm), while the intermediate-early decline group, which had the poorest CVH, had the largest (0.72 mm; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76 mm; P less than .001). The relationship was the same even after adjustment for baseline or proximal CVH scores, showing that the trajectory of CVH scores was driving the measure of subclinical atherosclerosis.

“Although it remains important to provide treatment to individuals with elevated risk factor levels, the most effective way to reduce the burden of future CV disease may be to prevent the development of those CV disease risk factors, an approach termed primordial prevention. There is a large body of literature showing effective interventions that may help individuals maintain ideal CV health. Our findings suggest that these interventions are critical and should be implemented early in life to prevent the loss of CVH and future CV [disease] development,” the authors wrote.

The study’s limitations include the fact that analyzed cohorts were drawn from studies with varying protocols and CVH measurement methods. It is also limited by its observational nature.

The two studies were funded by a range of nonindustry sources.

SOURCES: Allen N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0140; Corlin N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0109.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has issued a statement urging physicians and patients to continue treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), in light of a newly described theory that those agents could increase the risk of developing COVID-19 and/or worsen its severity.

The concern arises from the observation that the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to infect cells, and both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase ACE2 levels.

This mechanism has been theorized as a possible risk factor for facilitating the acquisition of COVID-19 infection and worsening its severity. However, paradoxically, it has also been hypothesized to protect against acute lung injury from the disease.

Meanwhile, a Lancet Respiratory Medicine article was published March 11 entitled, “Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection?”

“We ... hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” said the authors.

This prompted some media coverage in the United Kingdom and “social media-related amplification,” leading to concern and, in some cases, discontinuation of the drugs by patients.

But on March 13, the ESC Council on Hypertension dismissed the concerns as entirely speculative, in a statement posted to the ESC website.

It said that the council “strongly recommend that physicians and patients should continue treatment with their usual antihypertensive therapy because there is no clinical or scientific evidence to suggest that treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs should be discontinued because of the COVID-19 infection.”

The statement, signed by Council Chair Professor Giovanni de Simone, MD, on behalf of the nucleus members, also says that in regard to the theorized protective effect against serious lung complications in individuals with COVID-19, the data come only from animal, and not human, studies.

“Speculation about the safety of ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment in relation to COVID-19 does not have a sound scientific basis or evidence to support it,” the ESC panel concludes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has issued a statement urging physicians and patients to continue treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), in light of a newly described theory that those agents could increase the risk of developing COVID-19 and/or worsen its severity.

The concern arises from the observation that the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to infect cells, and both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase ACE2 levels.

This mechanism has been theorized as a possible risk factor for facilitating the acquisition of COVID-19 infection and worsening its severity. However, paradoxically, it has also been hypothesized to protect against acute lung injury from the disease.

Meanwhile, a Lancet Respiratory Medicine article was published March 11 entitled, “Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection?”

“We ... hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” said the authors.

This prompted some media coverage in the United Kingdom and “social media-related amplification,” leading to concern and, in some cases, discontinuation of the drugs by patients.

But on March 13, the ESC Council on Hypertension dismissed the concerns as entirely speculative, in a statement posted to the ESC website.

It said that the council “strongly recommend that physicians and patients should continue treatment with their usual antihypertensive therapy because there is no clinical or scientific evidence to suggest that treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs should be discontinued because of the COVID-19 infection.”

The statement, signed by Council Chair Professor Giovanni de Simone, MD, on behalf of the nucleus members, also says that in regard to the theorized protective effect against serious lung complications in individuals with COVID-19, the data come only from animal, and not human, studies.

“Speculation about the safety of ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment in relation to COVID-19 does not have a sound scientific basis or evidence to support it,” the ESC panel concludes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has issued a statement urging physicians and patients to continue treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), in light of a newly described theory that those agents could increase the risk of developing COVID-19 and/or worsen its severity.

The concern arises from the observation that the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to infect cells, and both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase ACE2 levels.

This mechanism has been theorized as a possible risk factor for facilitating the acquisition of COVID-19 infection and worsening its severity. However, paradoxically, it has also been hypothesized to protect against acute lung injury from the disease.

Meanwhile, a Lancet Respiratory Medicine article was published March 11 entitled, “Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection?”

“We ... hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” said the authors.

This prompted some media coverage in the United Kingdom and “social media-related amplification,” leading to concern and, in some cases, discontinuation of the drugs by patients.

But on March 13, the ESC Council on Hypertension dismissed the concerns as entirely speculative, in a statement posted to the ESC website.

It said that the council “strongly recommend that physicians and patients should continue treatment with their usual antihypertensive therapy because there is no clinical or scientific evidence to suggest that treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs should be discontinued because of the COVID-19 infection.”

The statement, signed by Council Chair Professor Giovanni de Simone, MD, on behalf of the nucleus members, also says that in regard to the theorized protective effect against serious lung complications in individuals with COVID-19, the data come only from animal, and not human, studies.

“Speculation about the safety of ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment in relation to COVID-19 does not have a sound scientific basis or evidence to support it,” the ESC panel concludes.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – More favorable cardiovascular health at 28 weeks’ gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse maternal and newborn pregnancy outcomes, according to results from a multinational cohort study.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Over the past 10 years, cardiovascular health [CVH] has been characterized across most of the life course and is associated with a variety of health outcomes, but CVH as a whole has not been well studied during pregnancy,” Amanda M. Perak, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

In an effort to examine the associations of maternal gestational CVH with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, Dr. Perak of the departments of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital, both in Chicago, and colleagues drew from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, which examined pregnant women at a target of 28 weeks’ gestation and assessed the associations of glycemia with pregnancy outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from an ancillary study of 2,230 mother-child dyads to characterize clinical gestational CVH with use of five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and smoking. The study excluded women with prepregnancy diabetes, preterm births, and cases of fetal death/major malformations.

Each maternal CVH metric was classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to modified definitions based on pregnancy guidelines. “For lipids, it’s known that levels change substantially during pregnancy, but there are no pregnancy guidelines,” Dr. Perak said. “We and others have also shown that higher triglycerides in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We selected thresholds of less than 250 mg/dL for ideal and at least 500 mg/dL for poor, based on triglyceride distribution and clinical relevance.”

Total CVH was scored by assigning 2 points for ideal, 1 for intermediate, and 0 for each poor metric, for a total possible 10 points, with 10 being most favorable. They also created four CVH categories, ranging from all ideal to two or more poor metrics. Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia and unplanned primary cesarean section. Newborn adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight above the 90th percentile and a cord blood insulin sensitivity index lower than the 10th percentile.

The researchers used logistic and multinomial logistic regression of pregnancy outcomes on maternal gestational CVH in two adjusted models. Secondarily, they examined associations of individual CVH metrics with outcomes, with adjustment for the other metrics.

The cohort comprised mother-child dyads from nine field centers in six countries: the United States (25%), Barbados (23%), United Kingdom (21%), China (18%), Thailand (7%), and Canada (7%). The mothers’ mean age was 30 years, and the mean gestational age was 28 weeks. The mean gestational CVH score was 8.8 out of 10. Nearly half of mothers (42%) had ideal metrics, while 4% had two or more poor metrics. Delivery occurred at a mean of 39.8 weeks, and adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 4.7%-17.9% of pregnancies.

In the fully adjusted model, which accounted for maternal age, height, alcohol use, gestational age at pregnancy exam, maternal parity, and newborn sex and race/ethnicity, odds ratios per 1-point higher (better) CVH score were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70) for preeclampsia, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.95) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for large for gestational age infant, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87) for infant insulin sensitivity index below the 10th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes. For example, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 4.61 (95% CI, 2.13-11.14) for mothers with one or more intermediate metrics, 7.62 (95% CI, 3.60-18.13) for mothers with one poor metric, and 12.02 (95% CI, 4.70-32.50) for mothers with two or more poor metrics, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal.

“Except for smoking, each CVH metric was independently associated with adverse outcomes,” Dr. Perak said. “However, total CVH was associated with a wider range of outcomes than any single metric. This suggests that CVH provides health insights beyond single risk factors.”

Strengths of the study, she continued, included geographic and racial diversity of participants and high-quality research measurements of CVH. Limitations were that the cohort excluded prepregnancy diabetes and preterm births. “Diet and exercise data were not available, and CVH was measured once at 28 weeks,” she said. “Further study is needed across pregnancy and in other settings, but this study provides the first data on the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes.”

In an interview, Stephen S. Rich, PhD, who directs the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, said that the data “provide strong epidemiologic support to focus on the full range of cardiovascular health. In my view, the primary limitation of the study is that there may be significant differences in how one achieves ideal CHV across a single country, not to mention across the world, particularly in absence of a highly controlled, research environment. It is not clear that the approach used in this study at nine selected sites in six relatively highly developed countries could be translated into primary care – particularly in the U.S. with different regulatory and reimbursement plans and payers. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests a way to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the area deserves greater research.”

According to Dr. Perak, gestational diabetes is associated with a twofold higher maternal risk for cardiovascular disease (Diabetologia. 2019;62:905-14), while diabetes is also associated with higher offspring risk for CVD (BMJ. 2019;367:16398). However, a paucity of data exists on gestational CVH. In one report, better gestational CVH was associated with less subclinical CVD for the mother 10 years later (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 23. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011394). In a separate analysis, Dr. Perak and her colleagues found that better gestational CVH was associated with better offspring CVH in childhood. “Unfortunately, we also reported that, among pregnant women in the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 had high CVH,” she said (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015123). “However, the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes is unknown, but a it’s key question when considering CVH monitoring in prenatal care.”

Dr. Perak reported having received grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and Northwestern University. The HAPO Study was supported by NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Perak A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 33.

PHOENIX – More favorable cardiovascular health at 28 weeks’ gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse maternal and newborn pregnancy outcomes, according to results from a multinational cohort study.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Over the past 10 years, cardiovascular health [CVH] has been characterized across most of the life course and is associated with a variety of health outcomes, but CVH as a whole has not been well studied during pregnancy,” Amanda M. Perak, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

In an effort to examine the associations of maternal gestational CVH with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, Dr. Perak of the departments of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital, both in Chicago, and colleagues drew from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, which examined pregnant women at a target of 28 weeks’ gestation and assessed the associations of glycemia with pregnancy outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from an ancillary study of 2,230 mother-child dyads to characterize clinical gestational CVH with use of five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and smoking. The study excluded women with prepregnancy diabetes, preterm births, and cases of fetal death/major malformations.

Each maternal CVH metric was classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to modified definitions based on pregnancy guidelines. “For lipids, it’s known that levels change substantially during pregnancy, but there are no pregnancy guidelines,” Dr. Perak said. “We and others have also shown that higher triglycerides in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We selected thresholds of less than 250 mg/dL for ideal and at least 500 mg/dL for poor, based on triglyceride distribution and clinical relevance.”

Total CVH was scored by assigning 2 points for ideal, 1 for intermediate, and 0 for each poor metric, for a total possible 10 points, with 10 being most favorable. They also created four CVH categories, ranging from all ideal to two or more poor metrics. Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia and unplanned primary cesarean section. Newborn adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight above the 90th percentile and a cord blood insulin sensitivity index lower than the 10th percentile.

The researchers used logistic and multinomial logistic regression of pregnancy outcomes on maternal gestational CVH in two adjusted models. Secondarily, they examined associations of individual CVH metrics with outcomes, with adjustment for the other metrics.

The cohort comprised mother-child dyads from nine field centers in six countries: the United States (25%), Barbados (23%), United Kingdom (21%), China (18%), Thailand (7%), and Canada (7%). The mothers’ mean age was 30 years, and the mean gestational age was 28 weeks. The mean gestational CVH score was 8.8 out of 10. Nearly half of mothers (42%) had ideal metrics, while 4% had two or more poor metrics. Delivery occurred at a mean of 39.8 weeks, and adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 4.7%-17.9% of pregnancies.

In the fully adjusted model, which accounted for maternal age, height, alcohol use, gestational age at pregnancy exam, maternal parity, and newborn sex and race/ethnicity, odds ratios per 1-point higher (better) CVH score were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70) for preeclampsia, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.95) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for large for gestational age infant, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87) for infant insulin sensitivity index below the 10th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes. For example, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 4.61 (95% CI, 2.13-11.14) for mothers with one or more intermediate metrics, 7.62 (95% CI, 3.60-18.13) for mothers with one poor metric, and 12.02 (95% CI, 4.70-32.50) for mothers with two or more poor metrics, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal.

“Except for smoking, each CVH metric was independently associated with adverse outcomes,” Dr. Perak said. “However, total CVH was associated with a wider range of outcomes than any single metric. This suggests that CVH provides health insights beyond single risk factors.”

Strengths of the study, she continued, included geographic and racial diversity of participants and high-quality research measurements of CVH. Limitations were that the cohort excluded prepregnancy diabetes and preterm births. “Diet and exercise data were not available, and CVH was measured once at 28 weeks,” she said. “Further study is needed across pregnancy and in other settings, but this study provides the first data on the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes.”

In an interview, Stephen S. Rich, PhD, who directs the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, said that the data “provide strong epidemiologic support to focus on the full range of cardiovascular health. In my view, the primary limitation of the study is that there may be significant differences in how one achieves ideal CHV across a single country, not to mention across the world, particularly in absence of a highly controlled, research environment. It is not clear that the approach used in this study at nine selected sites in six relatively highly developed countries could be translated into primary care – particularly in the U.S. with different regulatory and reimbursement plans and payers. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests a way to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the area deserves greater research.”

According to Dr. Perak, gestational diabetes is associated with a twofold higher maternal risk for cardiovascular disease (Diabetologia. 2019;62:905-14), while diabetes is also associated with higher offspring risk for CVD (BMJ. 2019;367:16398). However, a paucity of data exists on gestational CVH. In one report, better gestational CVH was associated with less subclinical CVD for the mother 10 years later (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 23. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011394). In a separate analysis, Dr. Perak and her colleagues found that better gestational CVH was associated with better offspring CVH in childhood. “Unfortunately, we also reported that, among pregnant women in the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 had high CVH,” she said (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015123). “However, the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes is unknown, but a it’s key question when considering CVH monitoring in prenatal care.”

Dr. Perak reported having received grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and Northwestern University. The HAPO Study was supported by NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Perak A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 33.

PHOENIX – More favorable cardiovascular health at 28 weeks’ gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse maternal and newborn pregnancy outcomes, according to results from a multinational cohort study.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Over the past 10 years, cardiovascular health [CVH] has been characterized across most of the life course and is associated with a variety of health outcomes, but CVH as a whole has not been well studied during pregnancy,” Amanda M. Perak, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

In an effort to examine the associations of maternal gestational CVH with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, Dr. Perak of the departments of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital, both in Chicago, and colleagues drew from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, which examined pregnant women at a target of 28 weeks’ gestation and assessed the associations of glycemia with pregnancy outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from an ancillary study of 2,230 mother-child dyads to characterize clinical gestational CVH with use of five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and smoking. The study excluded women with prepregnancy diabetes, preterm births, and cases of fetal death/major malformations.

Each maternal CVH metric was classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to modified definitions based on pregnancy guidelines. “For lipids, it’s known that levels change substantially during pregnancy, but there are no pregnancy guidelines,” Dr. Perak said. “We and others have also shown that higher triglycerides in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We selected thresholds of less than 250 mg/dL for ideal and at least 500 mg/dL for poor, based on triglyceride distribution and clinical relevance.”

Total CVH was scored by assigning 2 points for ideal, 1 for intermediate, and 0 for each poor metric, for a total possible 10 points, with 10 being most favorable. They also created four CVH categories, ranging from all ideal to two or more poor metrics. Maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia and unplanned primary cesarean section. Newborn adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight above the 90th percentile and a cord blood insulin sensitivity index lower than the 10th percentile.

The researchers used logistic and multinomial logistic regression of pregnancy outcomes on maternal gestational CVH in two adjusted models. Secondarily, they examined associations of individual CVH metrics with outcomes, with adjustment for the other metrics.

The cohort comprised mother-child dyads from nine field centers in six countries: the United States (25%), Barbados (23%), United Kingdom (21%), China (18%), Thailand (7%), and Canada (7%). The mothers’ mean age was 30 years, and the mean gestational age was 28 weeks. The mean gestational CVH score was 8.8 out of 10. Nearly half of mothers (42%) had ideal metrics, while 4% had two or more poor metrics. Delivery occurred at a mean of 39.8 weeks, and adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 4.7%-17.9% of pregnancies.

In the fully adjusted model, which accounted for maternal age, height, alcohol use, gestational age at pregnancy exam, maternal parity, and newborn sex and race/ethnicity, odds ratios per 1-point higher (better) CVH score were 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.70) for preeclampsia, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.95) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for large for gestational age infant, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87) for infant insulin sensitivity index below the 10th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes. For example, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 4.61 (95% CI, 2.13-11.14) for mothers with one or more intermediate metrics, 7.62 (95% CI, 3.60-18.13) for mothers with one poor metric, and 12.02 (95% CI, 4.70-32.50) for mothers with two or more poor metrics, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal.

“Except for smoking, each CVH metric was independently associated with adverse outcomes,” Dr. Perak said. “However, total CVH was associated with a wider range of outcomes than any single metric. This suggests that CVH provides health insights beyond single risk factors.”

Strengths of the study, she continued, included geographic and racial diversity of participants and high-quality research measurements of CVH. Limitations were that the cohort excluded prepregnancy diabetes and preterm births. “Diet and exercise data were not available, and CVH was measured once at 28 weeks,” she said. “Further study is needed across pregnancy and in other settings, but this study provides the first data on the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes.”

In an interview, Stephen S. Rich, PhD, who directs the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, said that the data “provide strong epidemiologic support to focus on the full range of cardiovascular health. In my view, the primary limitation of the study is that there may be significant differences in how one achieves ideal CHV across a single country, not to mention across the world, particularly in absence of a highly controlled, research environment. It is not clear that the approach used in this study at nine selected sites in six relatively highly developed countries could be translated into primary care – particularly in the U.S. with different regulatory and reimbursement plans and payers. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests a way to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the area deserves greater research.”

According to Dr. Perak, gestational diabetes is associated with a twofold higher maternal risk for cardiovascular disease (Diabetologia. 2019;62:905-14), while diabetes is also associated with higher offspring risk for CVD (BMJ. 2019;367:16398). However, a paucity of data exists on gestational CVH. In one report, better gestational CVH was associated with less subclinical CVD for the mother 10 years later (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 23. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.011394). In a separate analysis, Dr. Perak and her colleagues found that better gestational CVH was associated with better offspring CVH in childhood. “Unfortunately, we also reported that, among pregnant women in the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 had high CVH,” she said (J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015123). “However, the relevance of gestational CVH for pregnancy outcomes is unknown, but a it’s key question when considering CVH monitoring in prenatal care.”

Dr. Perak reported having received grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and Northwestern University. The HAPO Study was supported by NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Perak A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 33.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The “Flattening the Curve” graphic, which has, to not use the term lightly, gone viral on social media, visually explains the best currently available strategy to stop the COVID-19 spread, experts told Medscape Medical News.

The height of the curve is the number of potential cases in the United States; along the horizontal X axis, or the breadth, is the amount of time. The line across the middle represents the point at which too many cases in too short a time overwhelm the healthcare system.
 

When you think of large numbers of people becoming newly infected and potentially very sick, you’d like them to come into emergency departments and intensive care units four or five at a time and not 30 at a time, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s School of Medicine explained.

“Not only are you spreading out the new cases but the rate at which people recover,” she told Medscape Medical News. “You have time to get people out of the hospital so you can get new people in and clear out those beds.”

The strategy, with its own Twitter hashtag, #Flattenthecurve, “is about all we have,” without a vaccine, Marrazzo said.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said avoiding spikes in cases could mean fewer deaths.

“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, you know, they go big peaks, and then they come down. What we need to do is flatten that down,” Fauci said March 10 in a White House briefing. “You do that by trying to interfere with the natural flow of the outbreak.”

Wuhan, China, at the epicenter of the pandemic, “had an explosive curve” and quickly got overwhelmed without early containment measures, Marrazzo noted. “If you look at Italy right now, it’s clearly in the same situation.”
 

The Race Is On to Interrupt the Spread

The race is on in the US to interrupt the transmission of the virus and slow the spread, meaning containment measures have increasingly higher and wider stakes.

Closing down Broadway shows and some theme parks and massive sporting events; the escalating numbers of people working from home; and businesses cutting hours or closing all demonstrate the level of US confidence that “social distancing” will work, Marrazzo said.

“We’re clearly ready to disrupt the economy and social infrastructure,” she said.

That appears to have made a difference in Wuhan, Marrazzo said, as the new infections are coming down.

The question, she said, is “we’re not China – so are Americans really going to take to this? Americans greatly value their liberty and there’s some skepticism about public health and its directives. People have never seen a pandemic like this before.”

Dena Grayson, MD, PhD, a Florida-based expert in Ebola and other pandemic threats, told Medscape Medical News that EvergreenHealth in Kirkland, Washington, is a good example of what it means when a virus overwhelms healthcare operations.

The New York Times reported that supplies were so strained at the facility that staff were using sanitary napkins to pad protective helmets.

As of March 11, 65 people who had come into the hospital have tested positive for the virus, and 15 of them had died.

Grayson points out that the COVID-19 cases come on top of a severe flu season and the usual cases hospitals see, so the bar on the graphic is even lower than it usually would be.

“We have a relatively limited capacity with ICU beds to begin with,” she said.

So far, closures, postponements, and cancellations are woefully inadequate, Grayson said.

“We can’t stop this virus. We can hope to contain it and slow down the rate of infection,” she said.

“We need to right now shut down all the schools, preschools, and universities,” Grayson said. “We need to look at shutting down public transportation. We need people to stay home – and not for a day but for a couple of weeks.”

The graphic was developed by visual-data journalist Rosamund Pearce, based on a graphic that had appeared in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) article titled “Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza,” the Times reports.

Marrazzo and Grayson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com .

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The “Flattening the Curve” graphic, which has, to not use the term lightly, gone viral on social media, visually explains the best currently available strategy to stop the COVID-19 spread, experts told Medscape Medical News.

The height of the curve is the number of potential cases in the United States; along the horizontal X axis, or the breadth, is the amount of time. The line across the middle represents the point at which too many cases in too short a time overwhelm the healthcare system.
 

When you think of large numbers of people becoming newly infected and potentially very sick, you’d like them to come into emergency departments and intensive care units four or five at a time and not 30 at a time, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s School of Medicine explained.

“Not only are you spreading out the new cases but the rate at which people recover,” she told Medscape Medical News. “You have time to get people out of the hospital so you can get new people in and clear out those beds.”

The strategy, with its own Twitter hashtag, #Flattenthecurve, “is about all we have,” without a vaccine, Marrazzo said.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said avoiding spikes in cases could mean fewer deaths.

“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, you know, they go big peaks, and then they come down. What we need to do is flatten that down,” Fauci said March 10 in a White House briefing. “You do that by trying to interfere with the natural flow of the outbreak.”

Wuhan, China, at the epicenter of the pandemic, “had an explosive curve” and quickly got overwhelmed without early containment measures, Marrazzo noted. “If you look at Italy right now, it’s clearly in the same situation.”
 

The Race Is On to Interrupt the Spread

The race is on in the US to interrupt the transmission of the virus and slow the spread, meaning containment measures have increasingly higher and wider stakes.

Closing down Broadway shows and some theme parks and massive sporting events; the escalating numbers of people working from home; and businesses cutting hours or closing all demonstrate the level of US confidence that “social distancing” will work, Marrazzo said.

“We’re clearly ready to disrupt the economy and social infrastructure,” she said.

That appears to have made a difference in Wuhan, Marrazzo said, as the new infections are coming down.

The question, she said, is “we’re not China – so are Americans really going to take to this? Americans greatly value their liberty and there’s some skepticism about public health and its directives. People have never seen a pandemic like this before.”

Dena Grayson, MD, PhD, a Florida-based expert in Ebola and other pandemic threats, told Medscape Medical News that EvergreenHealth in Kirkland, Washington, is a good example of what it means when a virus overwhelms healthcare operations.

The New York Times reported that supplies were so strained at the facility that staff were using sanitary napkins to pad protective helmets.

As of March 11, 65 people who had come into the hospital have tested positive for the virus, and 15 of them had died.

Grayson points out that the COVID-19 cases come on top of a severe flu season and the usual cases hospitals see, so the bar on the graphic is even lower than it usually would be.

“We have a relatively limited capacity with ICU beds to begin with,” she said.

So far, closures, postponements, and cancellations are woefully inadequate, Grayson said.

“We can’t stop this virus. We can hope to contain it and slow down the rate of infection,” she said.

“We need to right now shut down all the schools, preschools, and universities,” Grayson said. “We need to look at shutting down public transportation. We need people to stay home – and not for a day but for a couple of weeks.”

The graphic was developed by visual-data journalist Rosamund Pearce, based on a graphic that had appeared in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) article titled “Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza,” the Times reports.

Marrazzo and Grayson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com .

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The “Flattening the Curve” graphic, which has, to not use the term lightly, gone viral on social media, visually explains the best currently available strategy to stop the COVID-19 spread, experts told Medscape Medical News.

The height of the curve is the number of potential cases in the United States; along the horizontal X axis, or the breadth, is the amount of time. The line across the middle represents the point at which too many cases in too short a time overwhelm the healthcare system.
 

When you think of large numbers of people becoming newly infected and potentially very sick, you’d like them to come into emergency departments and intensive care units four or five at a time and not 30 at a time, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s School of Medicine explained.

“Not only are you spreading out the new cases but the rate at which people recover,” she told Medscape Medical News. “You have time to get people out of the hospital so you can get new people in and clear out those beds.”

The strategy, with its own Twitter hashtag, #Flattenthecurve, “is about all we have,” without a vaccine, Marrazzo said.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said avoiding spikes in cases could mean fewer deaths.

“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, you know, they go big peaks, and then they come down. What we need to do is flatten that down,” Fauci said March 10 in a White House briefing. “You do that by trying to interfere with the natural flow of the outbreak.”

Wuhan, China, at the epicenter of the pandemic, “had an explosive curve” and quickly got overwhelmed without early containment measures, Marrazzo noted. “If you look at Italy right now, it’s clearly in the same situation.”
 

The Race Is On to Interrupt the Spread

The race is on in the US to interrupt the transmission of the virus and slow the spread, meaning containment measures have increasingly higher and wider stakes.

Closing down Broadway shows and some theme parks and massive sporting events; the escalating numbers of people working from home; and businesses cutting hours or closing all demonstrate the level of US confidence that “social distancing” will work, Marrazzo said.

“We’re clearly ready to disrupt the economy and social infrastructure,” she said.

That appears to have made a difference in Wuhan, Marrazzo said, as the new infections are coming down.

The question, she said, is “we’re not China – so are Americans really going to take to this? Americans greatly value their liberty and there’s some skepticism about public health and its directives. People have never seen a pandemic like this before.”

Dena Grayson, MD, PhD, a Florida-based expert in Ebola and other pandemic threats, told Medscape Medical News that EvergreenHealth in Kirkland, Washington, is a good example of what it means when a virus overwhelms healthcare operations.

The New York Times reported that supplies were so strained at the facility that staff were using sanitary napkins to pad protective helmets.

As of March 11, 65 people who had come into the hospital have tested positive for the virus, and 15 of them had died.

Grayson points out that the COVID-19 cases come on top of a severe flu season and the usual cases hospitals see, so the bar on the graphic is even lower than it usually would be.

“We have a relatively limited capacity with ICU beds to begin with,” she said.

So far, closures, postponements, and cancellations are woefully inadequate, Grayson said.

“We can’t stop this virus. We can hope to contain it and slow down the rate of infection,” she said.

“We need to right now shut down all the schools, preschools, and universities,” Grayson said. “We need to look at shutting down public transportation. We need people to stay home – and not for a day but for a couple of weeks.”

The graphic was developed by visual-data journalist Rosamund Pearce, based on a graphic that had appeared in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) article titled “Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza,” the Times reports.

Marrazzo and Grayson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com .

Several risk factors, including smoking, a previous severe hypoglycemic event, and poorly functioning kidneys, can lead to vision loss in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to new findings published in the Journal of Diabetes and its Complications.

“Smoking cessation strategies and optimal cardiometabolic risk factor management, including blood glucose lowering regimens that minimize hypoglycemia, appear important in preventing the loss of vision associated with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Jocelyn J. Drinkwater of the University of Western Australia, Perth, and coauthors, noting that all three noted risk factors were “potentially modifiable.”

To investigate the impact of type 2 diabetes and associated risk factors on vision, the researchers recruited 1,732 participants for the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II, of whom 1,551 patients had type 2 diabetes and underwent face-to-face and visual acuity assessments at baseline and at 2 and 4 years. Visual acuity was measured via the Bailey Lovie chart at a distance of 3 m in a well-lit room. Normal or near-normal vision was classified as a visual acuity of equal to or less than 6/19; visual impairment, a visual acuity of greater than 6/19 and equal to or less than 6/48; and blindness, a visual acuity of greater than 6/48. A change in vision was classified as a difference in visual acuity of more than 10 letters from baseline measurement.

Of the initial 1,551 participants, 31 were excluded because of missing baseline data for visual acuity. The remaining group comprised 52.2% men, the mean age was 65.6 years, and the median diabetes duration was 8.5 years (interquartile range, 2.9-15.8). At baseline, the prevalence of visual impairment was 1.8% (28 patients), and prevalence of blindness was 0.7% (11 patients), so those 39 patients were also excluded from further analysis.

After 4 years, 599 patients (39%) were excluded because of attrition or missing data; among them, 138 (23%) died before the follow-up.

The remaining 882 participants (58%) had their visual acuity measured. Among these patients, 62.2% were men, with a mean age of 65.1 years and an initial median diabetes duration of 7 years (IQR, 2.0-15.0). Their cumulative incidence of visual impairment was 0.9% (eight patients), and no patients with normal or near-normal vision had developed blindness. Cumulative incidence of vision loss was 2.9% (26), and 1.9% (17) had improved visual acuity.

After multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors for vision loss, the researchers found that participants who smoked at baseline were more than three times more likely to lose their vision (odds ratio, 3.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-8.76; P = .026). Although smoking was noted as a “well-recognized risk factor for ocular disease,” the authors added that ex-smokers did not have significantly higher odds of vision loss, compared with nonsmokers, suggesting that the “ocular damage caused by smoking may not be permanent.”

Participants who had suffered a severe hypoglycemic event before the study were five times more likely to lose their vision (OR, 5.59; 95% CI, 1.32-23.61; P = .019). The authors emphasized that severe hypoglycemia can worsen existing ischemic tissue damage or contribute to a long duration of poorly controlled diabetes, each of which could “increase the risk of ocular complications leading to impaired vision.”

The final notable risk factor was compromised kidney function, which is identified as a urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (uACR). The authors noted that the uACR has been associated with other ocular pathologies, such as retinopathy and macular edema, and that uACR may be a “surrogate marker of a variety of ocular diseases with shared risk factors, such as poor metabolic control, which have implications for vision.”

In regard to the possible limitations of the study, they authors noted that they had not used the “gold standard” Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart to assess visual acuity. In addition, although they had details on retinopathy, cataracts, and glaucoma status, they did not also consider less common ophthalmic conditions. Finally, as a survivor cohort, they acknowledged that they may have “underestimated the cumulative incidence” of vision issues in the participants.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Drinkwater JJ et al. J Diabetes Complications. 2020 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107560.

Several risk factors, including smoking, a previous severe hypoglycemic event, and poorly functioning kidneys, can lead to vision loss in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to new findings published in the Journal of Diabetes and its Complications.

“Smoking cessation strategies and optimal cardiometabolic risk factor management, including blood glucose lowering regimens that minimize hypoglycemia, appear important in preventing the loss of vision associated with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Jocelyn J. Drinkwater of the University of Western Australia, Perth, and coauthors, noting that all three noted risk factors were “potentially modifiable.”

To investigate the impact of type 2 diabetes and associated risk factors on vision, the researchers recruited 1,732 participants for the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II, of whom 1,551 patients had type 2 diabetes and underwent face-to-face and visual acuity assessments at baseline and at 2 and 4 years. Visual acuity was measured via the Bailey Lovie chart at a distance of 3 m in a well-lit room. Normal or near-normal vision was classified as a visual acuity of equal to or less than 6/19; visual impairment, a visual acuity of greater than 6/19 and equal to or less than 6/48; and blindness, a visual acuity of greater than 6/48. A change in vision was classified as a difference in visual acuity of more than 10 letters from baseline measurement.

Of the initial 1,551 participants, 31 were excluded because of missing baseline data for visual acuity. The remaining group comprised 52.2% men, the mean age was 65.6 years, and the median diabetes duration was 8.5 years (interquartile range, 2.9-15.8). At baseline, the prevalence of visual impairment was 1.8% (28 patients), and prevalence of blindness was 0.7% (11 patients), so those 39 patients were also excluded from further analysis.

After 4 years, 599 patients (39%) were excluded because of attrition or missing data; among them, 138 (23%) died before the follow-up.

The remaining 882 participants (58%) had their visual acuity measured. Among these patients, 62.2% were men, with a mean age of 65.1 years and an initial median diabetes duration of 7 years (IQR, 2.0-15.0). Their cumulative incidence of visual impairment was 0.9% (eight patients), and no patients with normal or near-normal vision had developed blindness. Cumulative incidence of vision loss was 2.9% (26), and 1.9% (17) had improved visual acuity.

After multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors for vision loss, the researchers found that participants who smoked at baseline were more than three times more likely to lose their vision (odds ratio, 3.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-8.76; P = .026). Although smoking was noted as a “well-recognized risk factor for ocular disease,” the authors added that ex-smokers did not have significantly higher odds of vision loss, compared with nonsmokers, suggesting that the “ocular damage caused by smoking may not be permanent.”

Participants who had suffered a severe hypoglycemic event before the study were five times more likely to lose their vision (OR, 5.59; 95% CI, 1.32-23.61; P = .019). The authors emphasized that severe hypoglycemia can worsen existing ischemic tissue damage or contribute to a long duration of poorly controlled diabetes, each of which could “increase the risk of ocular complications leading to impaired vision.”

The final notable risk factor was compromised kidney function, which is identified as a urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (uACR). The authors noted that the uACR has been associated with other ocular pathologies, such as retinopathy and macular edema, and that uACR may be a “surrogate marker of a variety of ocular diseases with shared risk factors, such as poor metabolic control, which have implications for vision.”

In regard to the possible limitations of the study, they authors noted that they had not used the “gold standard” Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart to assess visual acuity. In addition, although they had details on retinopathy, cataracts, and glaucoma status, they did not also consider less common ophthalmic conditions. Finally, as a survivor cohort, they acknowledged that they may have “underestimated the cumulative incidence” of vision issues in the participants.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Drinkwater JJ et al. J Diabetes Complications. 2020 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107560.

Several risk factors, including smoking, a previous severe hypoglycemic event, and poorly functioning kidneys, can lead to vision loss in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to new findings published in the Journal of Diabetes and its Complications.

“Smoking cessation strategies and optimal cardiometabolic risk factor management, including blood glucose lowering regimens that minimize hypoglycemia, appear important in preventing the loss of vision associated with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Jocelyn J. Drinkwater of the University of Western Australia, Perth, and coauthors, noting that all three noted risk factors were “potentially modifiable.”

To investigate the impact of type 2 diabetes and associated risk factors on vision, the researchers recruited 1,732 participants for the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II, of whom 1,551 patients had type 2 diabetes and underwent face-to-face and visual acuity assessments at baseline and at 2 and 4 years. Visual acuity was measured via the Bailey Lovie chart at a distance of 3 m in a well-lit room. Normal or near-normal vision was classified as a visual acuity of equal to or less than 6/19; visual impairment, a visual acuity of greater than 6/19 and equal to or less than 6/48; and blindness, a visual acuity of greater than 6/48. A change in vision was classified as a difference in visual acuity of more than 10 letters from baseline measurement.

Of the initial 1,551 participants, 31 were excluded because of missing baseline data for visual acuity. The remaining group comprised 52.2% men, the mean age was 65.6 years, and the median diabetes duration was 8.5 years (interquartile range, 2.9-15.8). At baseline, the prevalence of visual impairment was 1.8% (28 patients), and prevalence of blindness was 0.7% (11 patients), so those 39 patients were also excluded from further analysis.

After 4 years, 599 patients (39%) were excluded because of attrition or missing data; among them, 138 (23%) died before the follow-up.

The remaining 882 participants (58%) had their visual acuity measured. Among these patients, 62.2% were men, with a mean age of 65.1 years and an initial median diabetes duration of 7 years (IQR, 2.0-15.0). Their cumulative incidence of visual impairment was 0.9% (eight patients), and no patients with normal or near-normal vision had developed blindness. Cumulative incidence of vision loss was 2.9% (26), and 1.9% (17) had improved visual acuity.

After multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors for vision loss, the researchers found that participants who smoked at baseline were more than three times more likely to lose their vision (odds ratio, 3.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-8.76; P = .026). Although smoking was noted as a “well-recognized risk factor for ocular disease,” the authors added that ex-smokers did not have significantly higher odds of vision loss, compared with nonsmokers, suggesting that the “ocular damage caused by smoking may not be permanent.”

Participants who had suffered a severe hypoglycemic event before the study were five times more likely to lose their vision (OR, 5.59; 95% CI, 1.32-23.61; P = .019). The authors emphasized that severe hypoglycemia can worsen existing ischemic tissue damage or contribute to a long duration of poorly controlled diabetes, each of which could “increase the risk of ocular complications leading to impaired vision.”

The final notable risk factor was compromised kidney function, which is identified as a urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (uACR). The authors noted that the uACR has been associated with other ocular pathologies, such as retinopathy and macular edema, and that uACR may be a “surrogate marker of a variety of ocular diseases with shared risk factors, such as poor metabolic control, which have implications for vision.”

In regard to the possible limitations of the study, they authors noted that they had not used the “gold standard” Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart to assess visual acuity. In addition, although they had details on retinopathy, cataracts, and glaucoma status, they did not also consider less common ophthalmic conditions. Finally, as a survivor cohort, they acknowledged that they may have “underestimated the cumulative incidence” of vision issues in the participants.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Drinkwater JJ et al. J Diabetes Complications. 2020 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107560.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

agallegos@mdedge.com

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

agallegos@mdedge.com

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

agallegos@mdedge.com

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.