Clinical Endocrinology News

PHOENIX – Consumption of red meat, particularly the processed form, is linked to a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease in men, results from a large prospective analysis demonstrated.

“The findings of this study are in line with randomized trials showing that the consumption of red meat, as compared with plant-based protein sources, increases LDL cholesterol levels, and with previous studies on red meat and risk of coronary heart disease,” lead study author Laila Al-Shaar, MPH, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. Al-Shaar, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of nutrition at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, Boston, most of the existing studies on red meat and heart disease have examined the impact of increasing consumption of red meat while decreasing consumption of all other foods. For the current study, she and her colleagues used a substitution analysis approach to understand how replacing red meat (total, processed, or unprocessed) with another protein-rich food was associated with the risk of heart disease. “This would potentially provide more specific guidance for healthier alternatives for those planning to cut down their red meat intake,” she said.

She and her colleagues prospectively followed 43,259 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012) who had no known history of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Diet was assessed by a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire that was updated every 4 years. Dr. Al-Shaar and her colleagues used multivariate Cox models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CHD risk across categories of red meat consumption. They performed substitution analyses by comparing coefficients in models including alternative foods as continuous variables.

Over roughly 933,000 person-years of follow-up, the researchers documented 4,148 incident CHD cases. Of these, 1,680 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and nondietary risk factors, both total and processed red meat intake were associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for a one serving/day increment, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.14 for total red meat; and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22 for processed red meat). Substitutions of one serving per day of other foods (including nuts, legumes, soy, whole grains, and low- and high-fat dairy) for one serving per day of total red meat were associated with a 10%-47% lower CHD risk.

Stronger inverse associations were observed between some of these substitutions for red meat and risk of fatal CHD. Substituting nuts lowered the risk of fatal heart disease by 17%, while replacing red meat with whole grains was linked to a 48% reduction in that outcome. Those associations were more pronounced when replacing processed red meat.

“Processed meats and meats in general have been thought to be potentially not favorable in terms of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Now we have increasing data that not only is there a negative cardiovascular disease impact of animal protein, but we see this on all-cause mortality, including cancer.”

Dr. Al-Shaar said that the findings “support current recommendations to limit consumption of red meat and suggest that high-quality plant-based proteins such as nuts, legumes, and soy are good alternatives for individuals planning to have better food choices and healthier eating patterns.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that it was limited to non-Hispanic white health professionals, “thus limiting the generalizability of its findings to the whole population.”

Dr. Eckel, who is a past president of the American Heart Association, underscored the importance of one’s overall diet in mitigating the risk of developing coronary heart disease. “It’s not simply substituting animal protein with plant protein,” he said. “Fruits and vegetables and whole grains, lean protein from fish – a Mediterranean-style diet – is what the AHA recommends.”

Dr. Al-Shaar reported having no financial disclosures. The study was supported by a T32 training grant from the National Institutes of Health and by other grants from the NIH. The meeting was sponsored by the AHA.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Al-Shaar L et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract P512.

PHOENIX – Consumption of red meat, particularly the processed form, is linked to a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease in men, results from a large prospective analysis demonstrated.

“The findings of this study are in line with randomized trials showing that the consumption of red meat, as compared with plant-based protein sources, increases LDL cholesterol levels, and with previous studies on red meat and risk of coronary heart disease,” lead study author Laila Al-Shaar, MPH, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. Al-Shaar, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of nutrition at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, Boston, most of the existing studies on red meat and heart disease have examined the impact of increasing consumption of red meat while decreasing consumption of all other foods. For the current study, she and her colleagues used a substitution analysis approach to understand how replacing red meat (total, processed, or unprocessed) with another protein-rich food was associated with the risk of heart disease. “This would potentially provide more specific guidance for healthier alternatives for those planning to cut down their red meat intake,” she said.

She and her colleagues prospectively followed 43,259 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012) who had no known history of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Diet was assessed by a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire that was updated every 4 years. Dr. Al-Shaar and her colleagues used multivariate Cox models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CHD risk across categories of red meat consumption. They performed substitution analyses by comparing coefficients in models including alternative foods as continuous variables.

Over roughly 933,000 person-years of follow-up, the researchers documented 4,148 incident CHD cases. Of these, 1,680 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and nondietary risk factors, both total and processed red meat intake were associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for a one serving/day increment, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.14 for total red meat; and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22 for processed red meat). Substitutions of one serving per day of other foods (including nuts, legumes, soy, whole grains, and low- and high-fat dairy) for one serving per day of total red meat were associated with a 10%-47% lower CHD risk.

Stronger inverse associations were observed between some of these substitutions for red meat and risk of fatal CHD. Substituting nuts lowered the risk of fatal heart disease by 17%, while replacing red meat with whole grains was linked to a 48% reduction in that outcome. Those associations were more pronounced when replacing processed red meat.

“Processed meats and meats in general have been thought to be potentially not favorable in terms of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Now we have increasing data that not only is there a negative cardiovascular disease impact of animal protein, but we see this on all-cause mortality, including cancer.”

Dr. Al-Shaar said that the findings “support current recommendations to limit consumption of red meat and suggest that high-quality plant-based proteins such as nuts, legumes, and soy are good alternatives for individuals planning to have better food choices and healthier eating patterns.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that it was limited to non-Hispanic white health professionals, “thus limiting the generalizability of its findings to the whole population.”

Dr. Eckel, who is a past president of the American Heart Association, underscored the importance of one’s overall diet in mitigating the risk of developing coronary heart disease. “It’s not simply substituting animal protein with plant protein,” he said. “Fruits and vegetables and whole grains, lean protein from fish – a Mediterranean-style diet – is what the AHA recommends.”

Dr. Al-Shaar reported having no financial disclosures. The study was supported by a T32 training grant from the National Institutes of Health and by other grants from the NIH. The meeting was sponsored by the AHA.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Al-Shaar L et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract P512.

PHOENIX – Consumption of red meat, particularly the processed form, is linked to a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease in men, results from a large prospective analysis demonstrated.

“The findings of this study are in line with randomized trials showing that the consumption of red meat, as compared with plant-based protein sources, increases LDL cholesterol levels, and with previous studies on red meat and risk of coronary heart disease,” lead study author Laila Al-Shaar, MPH, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. Al-Shaar, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of nutrition at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, Boston, most of the existing studies on red meat and heart disease have examined the impact of increasing consumption of red meat while decreasing consumption of all other foods. For the current study, she and her colleagues used a substitution analysis approach to understand how replacing red meat (total, processed, or unprocessed) with another protein-rich food was associated with the risk of heart disease. “This would potentially provide more specific guidance for healthier alternatives for those planning to cut down their red meat intake,” she said.

She and her colleagues prospectively followed 43,259 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012) who had no known history of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Diet was assessed by a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire that was updated every 4 years. Dr. Al-Shaar and her colleagues used multivariate Cox models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CHD risk across categories of red meat consumption. They performed substitution analyses by comparing coefficients in models including alternative foods as continuous variables.

Over roughly 933,000 person-years of follow-up, the researchers documented 4,148 incident CHD cases. Of these, 1,680 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and nondietary risk factors, both total and processed red meat intake were associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for a one serving/day increment, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.14 for total red meat; and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22 for processed red meat). Substitutions of one serving per day of other foods (including nuts, legumes, soy, whole grains, and low- and high-fat dairy) for one serving per day of total red meat were associated with a 10%-47% lower CHD risk.

Stronger inverse associations were observed between some of these substitutions for red meat and risk of fatal CHD. Substituting nuts lowered the risk of fatal heart disease by 17%, while replacing red meat with whole grains was linked to a 48% reduction in that outcome. Those associations were more pronounced when replacing processed red meat.

“Processed meats and meats in general have been thought to be potentially not favorable in terms of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Now we have increasing data that not only is there a negative cardiovascular disease impact of animal protein, but we see this on all-cause mortality, including cancer.”

Dr. Al-Shaar said that the findings “support current recommendations to limit consumption of red meat and suggest that high-quality plant-based proteins such as nuts, legumes, and soy are good alternatives for individuals planning to have better food choices and healthier eating patterns.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that it was limited to non-Hispanic white health professionals, “thus limiting the generalizability of its findings to the whole population.”

Dr. Eckel, who is a past president of the American Heart Association, underscored the importance of one’s overall diet in mitigating the risk of developing coronary heart disease. “It’s not simply substituting animal protein with plant protein,” he said. “Fruits and vegetables and whole grains, lean protein from fish – a Mediterranean-style diet – is what the AHA recommends.”

Dr. Al-Shaar reported having no financial disclosures. The study was supported by a T32 training grant from the National Institutes of Health and by other grants from the NIH. The meeting was sponsored by the AHA.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Al-Shaar L et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract P512.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

PHOENIX – Statin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease increased modestly between 2008 and 2017 in the United States, but more than 40% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are still not on a statin.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, even after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults (Circulation. 2014;129:S1-45) that markedly increased the pool of eligible patients, disparities exist in the proportion of women versus men, and blacks and Hispanics versus whites with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who are currently receiving a statin.

“Despite repeated calls for the use of statins for secondary prevention of CVD in multiple guidelines, gender and racial inequalities in the use of statins persist,” Joseph A. Salami, MD, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2017, it was responsible for 647,457 deaths. We have an opportunity to improve CVD-related outcomes and cost by intensifying efforts to use statins for the secondary prevention of CVD and closing gender and racial gaps. Action is needed.”

Dr. Salami, a biostatistician with the Baptist Health South Florida Center for Advanced Analytics in Coral Gables, based his remarks on an analysis of data contained in the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national representative survey sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Between 2013 and 2018 there were six different guidelines released encouraging statin use among ASCVD patients,” he said. “Besides the good number needed to treat, statin use on secondary prevention of CVD is cost effective.”

Given the proven efficacy of statin use in the prevention of CVD, he and his associates set out to examine trends in the proportion of adults with ASCVD using statins and to assess for gender and racial differences in their use. The researchers used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to define ASCVD among the MEPS study population, as well as self-reported history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and stroke. After excluding adults aged younger than 40 years and those without ASCVD, this left a population of 15,911 patients. Of these, 44% were female, their mean age was 62 years, and 72% were Caucasian.

Overall, statin use increased from 50% in 2008 to 58.7% in 2017, with an average annual percentage change of 0.95% between 2010 and 2017 (P = .01). However, the annual percentage change in statin use was 0.25% among men versus 0.14% among women (P = .022). “Each year during the study period, more than 3 million women with ASCVD were not prescribed a statin, which translated into about 36 million adult-years,” Dr. Salami said. “In 2017, 16% of these women were African Americans and 15% were Hispanic.”

Logistic regression analysis revealed that in 2017, females with ASCVD were less likely to be prescribed a statin, compared with males (odds ratio, 0.52; P less than .001). In addition, compared with whites, blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin (OR, 0.69; P = .012), as were Hispanics (OR, 0.62; P = .003). “In a multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, health insurance status, and comorbidities, the gender disparity remained statistically significant, but the racial disparity did not,” Dr. Salami said.

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, PhD, characterized the study’s findings as sobering. “This should be an eye-opener for all of us in medicine, whether we are physicians, pharmacists, nurses, or researchers,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician scientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’re all in this together, and we all have a role to play in addressing social determinants of health. I think we need to recognize the fact that we’re not treating blacks, Hispanics, and women to the degree that we should be, compared to whites and men. I think we need to do better, and we need to figure out how to reach that population, and how to improve.”

Dr. Salami acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that MEPS was carried out in a noninstitutionalized adult population and that the definition of ASCVD was based partly on self-report. “Therefore, an underestimation of number adults with ASCVD is likely,” he said. “We also couldn’t determine adherence to medication nor long-term use of statins among adults with ASCVD.”

He concluded his presentation by noting that, over the 10-year study period, there were about 71.2 million ASCVD adult-years without a statin prescription. “That is a staggering number,” Dr. Salami said.

He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Salami A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 4.

PHOENIX – Statin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease increased modestly between 2008 and 2017 in the United States, but more than 40% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are still not on a statin.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, even after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults (Circulation. 2014;129:S1-45) that markedly increased the pool of eligible patients, disparities exist in the proportion of women versus men, and blacks and Hispanics versus whites with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who are currently receiving a statin.

“Despite repeated calls for the use of statins for secondary prevention of CVD in multiple guidelines, gender and racial inequalities in the use of statins persist,” Joseph A. Salami, MD, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2017, it was responsible for 647,457 deaths. We have an opportunity to improve CVD-related outcomes and cost by intensifying efforts to use statins for the secondary prevention of CVD and closing gender and racial gaps. Action is needed.”

Dr. Salami, a biostatistician with the Baptist Health South Florida Center for Advanced Analytics in Coral Gables, based his remarks on an analysis of data contained in the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national representative survey sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Between 2013 and 2018 there were six different guidelines released encouraging statin use among ASCVD patients,” he said. “Besides the good number needed to treat, statin use on secondary prevention of CVD is cost effective.”

Given the proven efficacy of statin use in the prevention of CVD, he and his associates set out to examine trends in the proportion of adults with ASCVD using statins and to assess for gender and racial differences in their use. The researchers used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to define ASCVD among the MEPS study population, as well as self-reported history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and stroke. After excluding adults aged younger than 40 years and those without ASCVD, this left a population of 15,911 patients. Of these, 44% were female, their mean age was 62 years, and 72% were Caucasian.

Overall, statin use increased from 50% in 2008 to 58.7% in 2017, with an average annual percentage change of 0.95% between 2010 and 2017 (P = .01). However, the annual percentage change in statin use was 0.25% among men versus 0.14% among women (P = .022). “Each year during the study period, more than 3 million women with ASCVD were not prescribed a statin, which translated into about 36 million adult-years,” Dr. Salami said. “In 2017, 16% of these women were African Americans and 15% were Hispanic.”

Logistic regression analysis revealed that in 2017, females with ASCVD were less likely to be prescribed a statin, compared with males (odds ratio, 0.52; P less than .001). In addition, compared with whites, blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin (OR, 0.69; P = .012), as were Hispanics (OR, 0.62; P = .003). “In a multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, health insurance status, and comorbidities, the gender disparity remained statistically significant, but the racial disparity did not,” Dr. Salami said.

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, PhD, characterized the study’s findings as sobering. “This should be an eye-opener for all of us in medicine, whether we are physicians, pharmacists, nurses, or researchers,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician scientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’re all in this together, and we all have a role to play in addressing social determinants of health. I think we need to recognize the fact that we’re not treating blacks, Hispanics, and women to the degree that we should be, compared to whites and men. I think we need to do better, and we need to figure out how to reach that population, and how to improve.”

Dr. Salami acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that MEPS was carried out in a noninstitutionalized adult population and that the definition of ASCVD was based partly on self-report. “Therefore, an underestimation of number adults with ASCVD is likely,” he said. “We also couldn’t determine adherence to medication nor long-term use of statins among adults with ASCVD.”

He concluded his presentation by noting that, over the 10-year study period, there were about 71.2 million ASCVD adult-years without a statin prescription. “That is a staggering number,” Dr. Salami said.

He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Salami A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 4.

PHOENIX – Statin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease increased modestly between 2008 and 2017 in the United States, but more than 40% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are still not on a statin.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, even after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults (Circulation. 2014;129:S1-45) that markedly increased the pool of eligible patients, disparities exist in the proportion of women versus men, and blacks and Hispanics versus whites with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who are currently receiving a statin.

“Despite repeated calls for the use of statins for secondary prevention of CVD in multiple guidelines, gender and racial inequalities in the use of statins persist,” Joseph A. Salami, MD, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2017, it was responsible for 647,457 deaths. We have an opportunity to improve CVD-related outcomes and cost by intensifying efforts to use statins for the secondary prevention of CVD and closing gender and racial gaps. Action is needed.”

Dr. Salami, a biostatistician with the Baptist Health South Florida Center for Advanced Analytics in Coral Gables, based his remarks on an analysis of data contained in the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national representative survey sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Between 2013 and 2018 there were six different guidelines released encouraging statin use among ASCVD patients,” he said. “Besides the good number needed to treat, statin use on secondary prevention of CVD is cost effective.”

Given the proven efficacy of statin use in the prevention of CVD, he and his associates set out to examine trends in the proportion of adults with ASCVD using statins and to assess for gender and racial differences in their use. The researchers used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to define ASCVD among the MEPS study population, as well as self-reported history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and stroke. After excluding adults aged younger than 40 years and those without ASCVD, this left a population of 15,911 patients. Of these, 44% were female, their mean age was 62 years, and 72% were Caucasian.

Overall, statin use increased from 50% in 2008 to 58.7% in 2017, with an average annual percentage change of 0.95% between 2010 and 2017 (P = .01). However, the annual percentage change in statin use was 0.25% among men versus 0.14% among women (P = .022). “Each year during the study period, more than 3 million women with ASCVD were not prescribed a statin, which translated into about 36 million adult-years,” Dr. Salami said. “In 2017, 16% of these women were African Americans and 15% were Hispanic.”

Logistic regression analysis revealed that in 2017, females with ASCVD were less likely to be prescribed a statin, compared with males (odds ratio, 0.52; P less than .001). In addition, compared with whites, blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin (OR, 0.69; P = .012), as were Hispanics (OR, 0.62; P = .003). “In a multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, health insurance status, and comorbidities, the gender disparity remained statistically significant, but the racial disparity did not,” Dr. Salami said.

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, PhD, characterized the study’s findings as sobering. “This should be an eye-opener for all of us in medicine, whether we are physicians, pharmacists, nurses, or researchers,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician scientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’re all in this together, and we all have a role to play in addressing social determinants of health. I think we need to recognize the fact that we’re not treating blacks, Hispanics, and women to the degree that we should be, compared to whites and men. I think we need to do better, and we need to figure out how to reach that population, and how to improve.”

Dr. Salami acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that MEPS was carried out in a noninstitutionalized adult population and that the definition of ASCVD was based partly on self-report. “Therefore, an underestimation of number adults with ASCVD is likely,” he said. “We also couldn’t determine adherence to medication nor long-term use of statins among adults with ASCVD.”

He concluded his presentation by noting that, over the 10-year study period, there were about 71.2 million ASCVD adult-years without a statin prescription. “That is a staggering number,” Dr. Salami said.

He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Salami A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 4.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, belapectin therapy was safe but did not significantly improve fibrosis or hepatic venous pressure gradient, compared with placebo, according to the results of a multicenter phase 2b study.

After 52 weeks of infusions, the change in hepatic venous pressure gradient did not significantly differ between the 2-mg/kg group (–0.28 mm Hg) and the placebo group (0.10 mm Hg) or between the 8-mg/kg group (–0.25 mm Hg) and the placebo group (P = .1 for both comparisons). Belapectin also did not significantly improve fibrosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, or the frequency of various complications of cirrhosis. “However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient and development of varices,” wrote Naga Chalasani, MD, of Indiana University in Indianapolis and his associates. The findings were published in Gastroenterology.

NASH leads to portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, ascites with bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and liver-related death and is a leading reason for liver transplantation among women and men. Galectin-3, which is primarily secreted by macrophages, is elevated in patients with NASH and has been linked to the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis in mice. Belapectin (GR-MD-02), a complex carbohydrate that targets and disrupts galectin-3, has been found to reduce liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies.

For this double-blind trial, the researchers randomly assigned 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient at least 6 mm Hg) to receive biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (54 patients), belapectin 8 mg/kg (54 patients), or placebo (54 patients). Patients were treated for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient.

In a post-hoc analysis of the 81 patients who had no esophageal varices at baseline, 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with an average 1.61-mm Hg reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient from baseline (P = .02) and with a reduction in the development of new varices (P = .03).These effects did not extend to subgroups of patients with varices at baseline, clinically significant portal hypertension, or mild portal hypertension. Moreover, 2 mg/kg belapectin did not improve fibrosis, and the higher dose of belapectin (8 mg/kg) met neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary endpoints in the overall cohort or in subgroup analyses. In the subgroup with no varices at baseline, Galectin Technologies is proceeding to initiating a phase 3 clinical trial.

“Interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly, belapectin was associated with an improvement in hepatocyte ballooning,” which “is considered fundamental to the pathogenesis of disease progression in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis,” the researchers wrote. “The significance of such improvement in hepatocyte ballooning in the absence of improvement of other histological components, especially inflammation, is unknown.”

Galectin Therapeutics provided funding. Dr. Chalasani disclosed grant support from Galectin Therapeutics and relevant consulting relationships with NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune (DS Biopharma), and several other pharmaceutical companies. Sixteen coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, of whom eight disclosed consulting relationships, received research funding, or were employed by Galectin.

SOURCE: Chalasani N et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296.

*This story was updated on 3/18/2020.

For patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, belapectin therapy was safe but did not significantly improve fibrosis or hepatic venous pressure gradient, compared with placebo, according to the results of a multicenter phase 2b study.

After 52 weeks of infusions, the change in hepatic venous pressure gradient did not significantly differ between the 2-mg/kg group (–0.28 mm Hg) and the placebo group (0.10 mm Hg) or between the 8-mg/kg group (–0.25 mm Hg) and the placebo group (P = .1 for both comparisons). Belapectin also did not significantly improve fibrosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, or the frequency of various complications of cirrhosis. “However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient and development of varices,” wrote Naga Chalasani, MD, of Indiana University in Indianapolis and his associates. The findings were published in Gastroenterology.

NASH leads to portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, ascites with bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and liver-related death and is a leading reason for liver transplantation among women and men. Galectin-3, which is primarily secreted by macrophages, is elevated in patients with NASH and has been linked to the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis in mice. Belapectin (GR-MD-02), a complex carbohydrate that targets and disrupts galectin-3, has been found to reduce liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies.

For this double-blind trial, the researchers randomly assigned 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient at least 6 mm Hg) to receive biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (54 patients), belapectin 8 mg/kg (54 patients), or placebo (54 patients). Patients were treated for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient.

In a post-hoc analysis of the 81 patients who had no esophageal varices at baseline, 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with an average 1.61-mm Hg reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient from baseline (P = .02) and with a reduction in the development of new varices (P = .03).These effects did not extend to subgroups of patients with varices at baseline, clinically significant portal hypertension, or mild portal hypertension. Moreover, 2 mg/kg belapectin did not improve fibrosis, and the higher dose of belapectin (8 mg/kg) met neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary endpoints in the overall cohort or in subgroup analyses. In the subgroup with no varices at baseline, Galectin Technologies is proceeding to initiating a phase 3 clinical trial.

“Interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly, belapectin was associated with an improvement in hepatocyte ballooning,” which “is considered fundamental to the pathogenesis of disease progression in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis,” the researchers wrote. “The significance of such improvement in hepatocyte ballooning in the absence of improvement of other histological components, especially inflammation, is unknown.”

Galectin Therapeutics provided funding. Dr. Chalasani disclosed grant support from Galectin Therapeutics and relevant consulting relationships with NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune (DS Biopharma), and several other pharmaceutical companies. Sixteen coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, of whom eight disclosed consulting relationships, received research funding, or were employed by Galectin.

SOURCE: Chalasani N et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296.

*This story was updated on 3/18/2020.

For patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, belapectin therapy was safe but did not significantly improve fibrosis or hepatic venous pressure gradient, compared with placebo, according to the results of a multicenter phase 2b study.

After 52 weeks of infusions, the change in hepatic venous pressure gradient did not significantly differ between the 2-mg/kg group (–0.28 mm Hg) and the placebo group (0.10 mm Hg) or between the 8-mg/kg group (–0.25 mm Hg) and the placebo group (P = .1 for both comparisons). Belapectin also did not significantly improve fibrosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, or the frequency of various complications of cirrhosis. “However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient and development of varices,” wrote Naga Chalasani, MD, of Indiana University in Indianapolis and his associates. The findings were published in Gastroenterology.

NASH leads to portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, ascites with bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and liver-related death and is a leading reason for liver transplantation among women and men. Galectin-3, which is primarily secreted by macrophages, is elevated in patients with NASH and has been linked to the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis in mice. Belapectin (GR-MD-02), a complex carbohydrate that targets and disrupts galectin-3, has been found to reduce liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies.

For this double-blind trial, the researchers randomly assigned 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient at least 6 mm Hg) to receive biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (54 patients), belapectin 8 mg/kg (54 patients), or placebo (54 patients). Patients were treated for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient.

In a post-hoc analysis of the 81 patients who had no esophageal varices at baseline, 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with an average 1.61-mm Hg reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient from baseline (P = .02) and with a reduction in the development of new varices (P = .03).These effects did not extend to subgroups of patients with varices at baseline, clinically significant portal hypertension, or mild portal hypertension. Moreover, 2 mg/kg belapectin did not improve fibrosis, and the higher dose of belapectin (8 mg/kg) met neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary endpoints in the overall cohort or in subgroup analyses. In the subgroup with no varices at baseline, Galectin Technologies is proceeding to initiating a phase 3 clinical trial.

“Interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly, belapectin was associated with an improvement in hepatocyte ballooning,” which “is considered fundamental to the pathogenesis of disease progression in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis,” the researchers wrote. “The significance of such improvement in hepatocyte ballooning in the absence of improvement of other histological components, especially inflammation, is unknown.”

Galectin Therapeutics provided funding. Dr. Chalasani disclosed grant support from Galectin Therapeutics and relevant consulting relationships with NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune (DS Biopharma), and several other pharmaceutical companies. Sixteen coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, of whom eight disclosed consulting relationships, received research funding, or were employed by Galectin.

SOURCE: Chalasani N et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296.

*This story was updated on 3/18/2020.

Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries could see lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin under a new model launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The plan, dubbed the Part D Senior Savings Model, would lower out-of-pocket costs to a maximum of a $35 copay for a 30-day supply throughout the plan year. The agency estimates that beneficiaries enrolling in a plan that is participating in the model would save an average of $446 annually in out-of-pocket costs for insulin.

The maximum copay will apply to all phases of the Part D benefit, including the deductible, initial coverage, and coverage gap phases, according to a fact sheet issued March 11 by the agency. CMS will be proving additional risk corridor protections to Part D plan sponsors to encourage participation in the voluntary model.

The agency has released two requests for application to participate in the model, one for Part D sponsors and one for insulin manufacturers, both of which can be found on a CMS web page providing more details on the program.

The agency said in the fact sheet that, on or around March 20, 2020, it will announce the manufacturers that are participating in the model for the 2021 plan year.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries could see lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin under a new model launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The plan, dubbed the Part D Senior Savings Model, would lower out-of-pocket costs to a maximum of a $35 copay for a 30-day supply throughout the plan year. The agency estimates that beneficiaries enrolling in a plan that is participating in the model would save an average of $446 annually in out-of-pocket costs for insulin.

The maximum copay will apply to all phases of the Part D benefit, including the deductible, initial coverage, and coverage gap phases, according to a fact sheet issued March 11 by the agency. CMS will be proving additional risk corridor protections to Part D plan sponsors to encourage participation in the voluntary model.

The agency has released two requests for application to participate in the model, one for Part D sponsors and one for insulin manufacturers, both of which can be found on a CMS web page providing more details on the program.

The agency said in the fact sheet that, on or around March 20, 2020, it will announce the manufacturers that are participating in the model for the 2021 plan year.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries could see lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin under a new model launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The plan, dubbed the Part D Senior Savings Model, would lower out-of-pocket costs to a maximum of a $35 copay for a 30-day supply throughout the plan year. The agency estimates that beneficiaries enrolling in a plan that is participating in the model would save an average of $446 annually in out-of-pocket costs for insulin.

The maximum copay will apply to all phases of the Part D benefit, including the deductible, initial coverage, and coverage gap phases, according to a fact sheet issued March 11 by the agency. CMS will be proving additional risk corridor protections to Part D plan sponsors to encourage participation in the voluntary model.

The agency has released two requests for application to participate in the model, one for Part D sponsors and one for insulin manufacturers, both of which can be found on a CMS web page providing more details on the program.

The agency said in the fact sheet that, on or around March 20, 2020, it will announce the manufacturers that are participating in the model for the 2021 plan year.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer among obese adults in a retrospective study of more than 1 million individuals.

Although some studies have suggested that bariatric surgery may reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancers, such as colorectal cancer, other studies have shown an increased colorectal cancer risk after surgery, according to Laurent Bailly, MD, of Université Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Bailly and colleagues compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery with the incidence in obese patients who did not have surgery and the incidence in the general population.

Using the French National Health Insurance Information System database, the researchers identified 1,045,348 obese adults aged 50-75 years who had no colorectal cancer at baseline. Of these patients, 74,131 underwent bariatric surgery and 971,217 did not. The mean age was 57.3 years in the surgery group and 63.4 years in the nonsurgery group.

The mean follow-up period was 6.2 years for patients who underwent adjustable gastric banding, 5.5 years for those with sleeve gastrectomy, 5.7 years for those who underwent gastric bypass, and 5.3 years for the nonsurgery group.
 

Results

Overall, the colorectal cancer rate was 0.6% in the surgery group and 1.3% in the nonsurgery group (P < .001).

The researchers calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the risk of colorectal cancer in the study population with the risk among the French general population; in other words, the number of observed colorectal cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases.

In the surgery group, 423 cases of colorectal cancer were observed and 428 cases were expected, which leads to an SIR of 1.0. In the nonsurgery group, 12,629 cases were observed and 9,417 cases were expected, leading to an SIR of 1.34.

These results suggest patients in the nonsurgery group had a 34% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population, whereas the risk in the surgery group was similar to that in the general population.

Patients who underwent either gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy had fewer new colorectal cancer diagnoses (0.5% for both) compared with patients who had adjustable gastric banding (0.7%).

The researchers noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the retrospective, observational design and potential selection bias among surgery patients. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and long-term follow-up.
 

Putting results into context

The authors of an invited commentary noted that this study is supported by results from a retrospective, U.S.-based study, which indicated that bariatric surgery has a “protective effect” against colorectal cancer (Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269[1]:95-101).

However, these results conflict with other retrospective studies. A study of Nordic patients suggested that bariatric surgery is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer but perhaps not rectal cancer (Int J Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32770).

And a study of English patients showed an increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients who underwent gastric bypass but not in those who underwent gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy (Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1650-7).

These conflicting results “imply that the jury is still out on whether bariatric surgery increases or decreases” the risk of colorectal cancer, the commentators wrote. They added that future studies “must account for differences in study population (i.e., race/ethnicity and national origin), mechanistic variation in bariatric surgical type, and length of follow-up, while also distinguishing between rectal and colon cancer before the case is settled.”

This study had no outside sponsorship, and the researchers and commentators had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Bailly L et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0089; Davidson LE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar. 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0090.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer among obese adults in a retrospective study of more than 1 million individuals.

Although some studies have suggested that bariatric surgery may reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancers, such as colorectal cancer, other studies have shown an increased colorectal cancer risk after surgery, according to Laurent Bailly, MD, of Université Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Bailly and colleagues compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery with the incidence in obese patients who did not have surgery and the incidence in the general population.

Using the French National Health Insurance Information System database, the researchers identified 1,045,348 obese adults aged 50-75 years who had no colorectal cancer at baseline. Of these patients, 74,131 underwent bariatric surgery and 971,217 did not. The mean age was 57.3 years in the surgery group and 63.4 years in the nonsurgery group.

The mean follow-up period was 6.2 years for patients who underwent adjustable gastric banding, 5.5 years for those with sleeve gastrectomy, 5.7 years for those who underwent gastric bypass, and 5.3 years for the nonsurgery group.
 

Results

Overall, the colorectal cancer rate was 0.6% in the surgery group and 1.3% in the nonsurgery group (P < .001).

The researchers calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the risk of colorectal cancer in the study population with the risk among the French general population; in other words, the number of observed colorectal cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases.

In the surgery group, 423 cases of colorectal cancer were observed and 428 cases were expected, which leads to an SIR of 1.0. In the nonsurgery group, 12,629 cases were observed and 9,417 cases were expected, leading to an SIR of 1.34.

These results suggest patients in the nonsurgery group had a 34% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population, whereas the risk in the surgery group was similar to that in the general population.

Patients who underwent either gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy had fewer new colorectal cancer diagnoses (0.5% for both) compared with patients who had adjustable gastric banding (0.7%).

The researchers noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the retrospective, observational design and potential selection bias among surgery patients. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and long-term follow-up.
 

Putting results into context

The authors of an invited commentary noted that this study is supported by results from a retrospective, U.S.-based study, which indicated that bariatric surgery has a “protective effect” against colorectal cancer (Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269[1]:95-101).

However, these results conflict with other retrospective studies. A study of Nordic patients suggested that bariatric surgery is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer but perhaps not rectal cancer (Int J Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32770).

And a study of English patients showed an increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients who underwent gastric bypass but not in those who underwent gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy (Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1650-7).

These conflicting results “imply that the jury is still out on whether bariatric surgery increases or decreases” the risk of colorectal cancer, the commentators wrote. They added that future studies “must account for differences in study population (i.e., race/ethnicity and national origin), mechanistic variation in bariatric surgical type, and length of follow-up, while also distinguishing between rectal and colon cancer before the case is settled.”

This study had no outside sponsorship, and the researchers and commentators had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Bailly L et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0089; Davidson LE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar. 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0090.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer among obese adults in a retrospective study of more than 1 million individuals.

Although some studies have suggested that bariatric surgery may reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancers, such as colorectal cancer, other studies have shown an increased colorectal cancer risk after surgery, according to Laurent Bailly, MD, of Université Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Bailly and colleagues compared the incidence of colorectal cancer in obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery with the incidence in obese patients who did not have surgery and the incidence in the general population.

Using the French National Health Insurance Information System database, the researchers identified 1,045,348 obese adults aged 50-75 years who had no colorectal cancer at baseline. Of these patients, 74,131 underwent bariatric surgery and 971,217 did not. The mean age was 57.3 years in the surgery group and 63.4 years in the nonsurgery group.

The mean follow-up period was 6.2 years for patients who underwent adjustable gastric banding, 5.5 years for those with sleeve gastrectomy, 5.7 years for those who underwent gastric bypass, and 5.3 years for the nonsurgery group.
 

Results

Overall, the colorectal cancer rate was 0.6% in the surgery group and 1.3% in the nonsurgery group (P < .001).

The researchers calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to compare the risk of colorectal cancer in the study population with the risk among the French general population; in other words, the number of observed colorectal cancer cases divided by the number of expected cases.

In the surgery group, 423 cases of colorectal cancer were observed and 428 cases were expected, which leads to an SIR of 1.0. In the nonsurgery group, 12,629 cases were observed and 9,417 cases were expected, leading to an SIR of 1.34.

These results suggest patients in the nonsurgery group had a 34% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population, whereas the risk in the surgery group was similar to that in the general population.

Patients who underwent either gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy had fewer new colorectal cancer diagnoses (0.5% for both) compared with patients who had adjustable gastric banding (0.7%).

The researchers noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the retrospective, observational design and potential selection bias among surgery patients. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and long-term follow-up.
 

Putting results into context

The authors of an invited commentary noted that this study is supported by results from a retrospective, U.S.-based study, which indicated that bariatric surgery has a “protective effect” against colorectal cancer (Ann Surg. 2019 Jan;269[1]:95-101).

However, these results conflict with other retrospective studies. A study of Nordic patients suggested that bariatric surgery is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer but perhaps not rectal cancer (Int J Cancer. 2019. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32770).

And a study of English patients showed an increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients who underwent gastric bypass but not in those who underwent gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy (Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1650-7).

These conflicting results “imply that the jury is still out on whether bariatric surgery increases or decreases” the risk of colorectal cancer, the commentators wrote. They added that future studies “must account for differences in study population (i.e., race/ethnicity and national origin), mechanistic variation in bariatric surgical type, and length of follow-up, while also distinguishing between rectal and colon cancer before the case is settled.”

This study had no outside sponsorship, and the researchers and commentators had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Bailly L et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0089; Davidson LE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar. 11. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0090.

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”

Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”

“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.

Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.

Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”

Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”

“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.

Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.

Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”

Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”

“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.

Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.

Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

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

The Endocrine Society has canceled its annual scientific meeting because of concerns about the novel coronavirus.

The conference was scheduled to take place March 28-31 in San Francisco. The announcement comes the same day as the American College of Cardiology/World Congress of Cardiology joint conference, scheduled for March 27-30 in Chicago, was also canceled.

“This is an unprecedented public health emergency that is clearly impacting not only the city of San Francisco, but many nations around the world. As such, it is with a very heavy heart that I am reporting to you that out of an abundance of caution, the board of directors has decided to cancel ENDO 2020,” Endocrine Society president E. Dale Abel, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

The Endocrine Society has canceled its annual meeting only twice before in its 104-year history, both during World War II. This year, more than 9,000 people were expected to attend the meeting. “Like you, ENDO is one of the highlights of my professional life each year, and I am sure that you are just as disappointed as I am to hear this news,” Dr. Abel said.

As recently as last week, the society’s board of directors had still hoped that the meeting could take place, but over the weekend it consulted with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, which has recommended canceling or postponing all nonessential gatherings.

The society also has been following reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

Moreover, Dr. Abel said, “To add to our concerns, institutions across the world are restricting travel, making it impossible for many who have registered for ENDO 2020 to attend and enjoy the meeting.”

The concerns extend even further, as attendance could take health care providers away from where they’re needed most during the emergency.

“By holding the meeting, we might not only put attendees at risk, but we may also displace health care workers during a public health crisis. This could occur because of the need to self-quarantine upon your return home or, in a worse scenario, contribute to spreading the virus to our attendees’ hometowns,” he said.

Meeting registrants will be contacted soon with refund information. Dr. Abel gave a “special thank you” to the annual meeting steering committee and staff, “who have poured so much into this meeting.”

The society is currently “exploring ways in which we might be able to deliver to our registrants content from ENDO 2020 in various venues in the coming year.”

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 Endocrine Society has canceled its annual scientific meeting because of concerns about the novel coronavirus.

The conference was scheduled to take place March 28-31 in San Francisco. The announcement comes the same day as the American College of Cardiology/World Congress of Cardiology joint conference, scheduled for March 27-30 in Chicago, was also canceled.

“This is an unprecedented public health emergency that is clearly impacting not only the city of San Francisco, but many nations around the world. As such, it is with a very heavy heart that I am reporting to you that out of an abundance of caution, the board of directors has decided to cancel ENDO 2020,” Endocrine Society president E. Dale Abel, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

The Endocrine Society has canceled its annual meeting only twice before in its 104-year history, both during World War II. This year, more than 9,000 people were expected to attend the meeting. “Like you, ENDO is one of the highlights of my professional life each year, and I am sure that you are just as disappointed as I am to hear this news,” Dr. Abel said.

As recently as last week, the society’s board of directors had still hoped that the meeting could take place, but over the weekend it consulted with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, which has recommended canceling or postponing all nonessential gatherings.

The society also has been following reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

Moreover, Dr. Abel said, “To add to our concerns, institutions across the world are restricting travel, making it impossible for many who have registered for ENDO 2020 to attend and enjoy the meeting.”

The concerns extend even further, as attendance could take health care providers away from where they’re needed most during the emergency.

“By holding the meeting, we might not only put attendees at risk, but we may also displace health care workers during a public health crisis. This could occur because of the need to self-quarantine upon your return home or, in a worse scenario, contribute to spreading the virus to our attendees’ hometowns,” he said.

Meeting registrants will be contacted soon with refund information. Dr. Abel gave a “special thank you” to the annual meeting steering committee and staff, “who have poured so much into this meeting.”

The society is currently “exploring ways in which we might be able to deliver to our registrants content from ENDO 2020 in various venues in the coming year.”

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 Endocrine Society has canceled its annual scientific meeting because of concerns about the novel coronavirus.

The conference was scheduled to take place March 28-31 in San Francisco. The announcement comes the same day as the American College of Cardiology/World Congress of Cardiology joint conference, scheduled for March 27-30 in Chicago, was also canceled.

“This is an unprecedented public health emergency that is clearly impacting not only the city of San Francisco, but many nations around the world. As such, it is with a very heavy heart that I am reporting to you that out of an abundance of caution, the board of directors has decided to cancel ENDO 2020,” Endocrine Society president E. Dale Abel, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

The Endocrine Society has canceled its annual meeting only twice before in its 104-year history, both during World War II. This year, more than 9,000 people were expected to attend the meeting. “Like you, ENDO is one of the highlights of my professional life each year, and I am sure that you are just as disappointed as I am to hear this news,” Dr. Abel said.

As recently as last week, the society’s board of directors had still hoped that the meeting could take place, but over the weekend it consulted with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, which has recommended canceling or postponing all nonessential gatherings.

The society also has been following reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

Moreover, Dr. Abel said, “To add to our concerns, institutions across the world are restricting travel, making it impossible for many who have registered for ENDO 2020 to attend and enjoy the meeting.”

The concerns extend even further, as attendance could take health care providers away from where they’re needed most during the emergency.

“By holding the meeting, we might not only put attendees at risk, but we may also displace health care workers during a public health crisis. This could occur because of the need to self-quarantine upon your return home or, in a worse scenario, contribute to spreading the virus to our attendees’ hometowns,” he said.

Meeting registrants will be contacted soon with refund information. Dr. Abel gave a “special thank you” to the annual meeting steering committee and staff, “who have poured so much into this meeting.”

The society is currently “exploring ways in which we might be able to deliver to our registrants content from ENDO 2020 in various venues in the coming year.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.