Cardiology News

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

For many physicians and other professionals, aspirations of crafting a work of fiction are not uncommon — and with good reason. We are, after all, a generally well-disciplined bunch capable of completing complex tasks, and there is certainly no shortage of excitement and drama in medicine and surgery — ample fodder for thrilling stories. Nonetheless, writing a novel is a major commitment, and it requires persistence, patience, and dedicated time, especially for one with a busy medical career.

Getting started is not easy. Writing workshops are helpful, and in my case, I tried to mentor with some of the best. Before writing my novel, I attended workshops for aspiring novelists, given by noted physician authors Tess Gerritsen (Body Double, The Surgeon) and the late Michael Palmer (The Society, The Fifth Vial).

Writers are often advised to “write about what you know.” In my case, I combined my knowledge of medicine and my experience with the thoroughbred racing world to craft a thriller that one reviewer described as “Dick Francis meets Robin Cook.” For those who have never read the Dick Francis series, he was a renowned crime writer whose novels centered on horse racing in England. Having been an avid reader of both authors, that comparison was the ultimate compliment.

So against that backdrop, here is my distillation of 10 key points on the craft of writing a great thriller, based on my own experience in writing the novel Shedrow, along with some shared wisdom from a few legendary writers.

1. Start with the big “what if.” Any great story starts with that simple “what if” question. What if a series of high-profile executives in the managed care industry are serially murdered (Michael Palmer’s The Society)? What if a multimillion-dollar stallion dies suddenly under very mysterious circumstances on a supposedly secure farm in Kentucky (Dean DeLuke’s Shedrow)?

2. Put a MacGuffin to work in your story. Popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, the MacGuffin is that essential plot element that drives virtually all characters in the story, although it may be rather vague and meaningless to the story itself. In the iconic movie Pulp Fiction, the MacGuffin is the briefcase — everyone wants it, and we never do find out what’s in it.

3. Pacing is critical. Plot out the timeline of emotional highs and lows in a story. It should look like a rolling pattern of highs and lows that crescendo upward to the ultimate crisis. Take advantage of the fact that following any of those emotional peaks, you probably have the reader’s undivided attention. That would be a good time to provide backstory or fill in needed information for the reader – information that may be critical but perhaps not as exciting as what just transpired.

4. Torture your protagonists. Just when the reader thinks that the hero is finally home free, throw in another obstacle. Readers will empathize with the character and be drawn in by the unexpected hurdle.

5. Be original and surprise your readers. Create twists and turns that are totally unexpected, yet believable. This is easier said than done but will go a long way toward making your novel original, gripping, and unpredictable.

6. As a general rule, consider short sentences and short chapters. This is strictly a personal preference, but who can argue with James Patterson’s short chapters or with Robert Parker’s short and engaging sentences? Sentence length can be varied for effect, too, with shorter sentences serving to heighten action or increase tension.

7. Avoid the passive voice. Your readers want action. This is an important rule in almost any type of writing.

8. Keep descriptions brief. Long, drawn-out descriptions of the way characters look, or even setting descriptions, are easily overdone in a thriller. The thriller genre is very different from literary fiction in this regard. Stephen King advises writers to “just say what they see, then get on with the story.”

9. Sustain the reader’s interest throughout. Assess each chapter ending and determine whether the reader has been given enough reason to want to continue reading. Pose a question, end with a minor cliffhanger, or at least ensure that there is enough accumulated tension in the story.

10. Edit aggressively and cut out the fluff. Ernest Hemingway once confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “I write one page of masterpiece to 91 pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Dr. DeLuke is professor emeritus of oral and facial surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of the novel Shedrow.

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

Treating obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy protects against myocardial infarction, stroke, and other cardiovascular (CV) events, particularly for patients with moderate to severe OSA and those who are more adherent to CPAP therapy, a new study suggests.

“Most clinical trials on the effect of CPAP on CV diseases to date have focused on secondary CV prevention. This study contributes another piece of evidence about the role of CPAP therapy to prevent CV diseases,” said Diego R. Mazzotti, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.

“Our study, while observational, suggests that clinical trials focused on understanding how to sustain long-term CPAP adherence in obstructive sleep apnea patients are necessary and could be critical for optimizing comorbidity risk reduction,” Dr. Mazzotti said.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Good adherence important

The researchers analyzed the electronic health records of adults referred for a sleep study through the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system. The sample included 11,145 adults without OSA, 13,898 with OSA who used CPAP, and 20,884 adults with OSA who did not use CPAP. None of them had CV disease at baseline. Median follow-up was 262 days.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, heart failure, or death caused by CV disease.

In adjusted models, adults with moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥15) who did not use CPAP were 71% more likely than those without OSA to have a first CV event (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-2.64). However, the risk for a CV event during follow-up was 32% lower among OSA patients with any CPAP use (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93; P = .016).

The effect was mostly driven by those who used CPAP for at least 4 hours per night (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95). This association was stronger for those with moderate to severe OSA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81).

“This study highlights the importance of long-term management of CPAP therapy in patients with moderate-severe OSA,” Dr. Mazzotti said in an interview.

“It suggests that maintaining good CPAP adherence might be beneficial for cardiovascular health, besides the already established benefits on quality of life, sleepiness, and other cardiometabolic functions,” he said.

Dr. Mazzotti said several mechanisms might explain the association between CPAP use and lower risk for CV events. “CPAP treats OSA by preventing respiratory pauses that occur during sleep, therefore preventing arousals, sleep fragmentation, and decreases in blood oxygen. These improved cardiorespiratory functions can be beneficial to avoid certain molecular changes that are known to contribute to cardiovascular risk, such as oxidative stress and inflammation,” he explained.

“However, specific studies fully understanding these mechanisms are necessary,” Dr. Mazzotti added.

In a comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said that “the frequent decreases in oxygen levels and fragmented sleep from apnea are associated with cardiovascular disorders. We know this from multiple studies. This, however, was a large study and strengthens the association between improving apnea and reduced serious cardiovascular events.”

Funding for the study was provided by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation and the American Heart Association. Dr. Mazzotti and Dr. Verma disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy protects against myocardial infarction, stroke, and other cardiovascular (CV) events, particularly for patients with moderate to severe OSA and those who are more adherent to CPAP therapy, a new study suggests.

“Most clinical trials on the effect of CPAP on CV diseases to date have focused on secondary CV prevention. This study contributes another piece of evidence about the role of CPAP therapy to prevent CV diseases,” said Diego R. Mazzotti, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.

“Our study, while observational, suggests that clinical trials focused on understanding how to sustain long-term CPAP adherence in obstructive sleep apnea patients are necessary and could be critical for optimizing comorbidity risk reduction,” Dr. Mazzotti said.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Good adherence important

The researchers analyzed the electronic health records of adults referred for a sleep study through the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system. The sample included 11,145 adults without OSA, 13,898 with OSA who used CPAP, and 20,884 adults with OSA who did not use CPAP. None of them had CV disease at baseline. Median follow-up was 262 days.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, heart failure, or death caused by CV disease.

In adjusted models, adults with moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥15) who did not use CPAP were 71% more likely than those without OSA to have a first CV event (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-2.64). However, the risk for a CV event during follow-up was 32% lower among OSA patients with any CPAP use (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93; P = .016).

The effect was mostly driven by those who used CPAP for at least 4 hours per night (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95). This association was stronger for those with moderate to severe OSA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81).

“This study highlights the importance of long-term management of CPAP therapy in patients with moderate-severe OSA,” Dr. Mazzotti said in an interview.

“It suggests that maintaining good CPAP adherence might be beneficial for cardiovascular health, besides the already established benefits on quality of life, sleepiness, and other cardiometabolic functions,” he said.

Dr. Mazzotti said several mechanisms might explain the association between CPAP use and lower risk for CV events. “CPAP treats OSA by preventing respiratory pauses that occur during sleep, therefore preventing arousals, sleep fragmentation, and decreases in blood oxygen. These improved cardiorespiratory functions can be beneficial to avoid certain molecular changes that are known to contribute to cardiovascular risk, such as oxidative stress and inflammation,” he explained.

“However, specific studies fully understanding these mechanisms are necessary,” Dr. Mazzotti added.

In a comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said that “the frequent decreases in oxygen levels and fragmented sleep from apnea are associated with cardiovascular disorders. We know this from multiple studies. This, however, was a large study and strengthens the association between improving apnea and reduced serious cardiovascular events.”

Funding for the study was provided by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation and the American Heart Association. Dr. Mazzotti and Dr. Verma disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy protects against myocardial infarction, stroke, and other cardiovascular (CV) events, particularly for patients with moderate to severe OSA and those who are more adherent to CPAP therapy, a new study suggests.

“Most clinical trials on the effect of CPAP on CV diseases to date have focused on secondary CV prevention. This study contributes another piece of evidence about the role of CPAP therapy to prevent CV diseases,” said Diego R. Mazzotti, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.

“Our study, while observational, suggests that clinical trials focused on understanding how to sustain long-term CPAP adherence in obstructive sleep apnea patients are necessary and could be critical for optimizing comorbidity risk reduction,” Dr. Mazzotti said.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Good adherence important

The researchers analyzed the electronic health records of adults referred for a sleep study through the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system. The sample included 11,145 adults without OSA, 13,898 with OSA who used CPAP, and 20,884 adults with OSA who did not use CPAP. None of them had CV disease at baseline. Median follow-up was 262 days.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, heart failure, or death caused by CV disease.

In adjusted models, adults with moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥15) who did not use CPAP were 71% more likely than those without OSA to have a first CV event (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-2.64). However, the risk for a CV event during follow-up was 32% lower among OSA patients with any CPAP use (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93; P = .016).

The effect was mostly driven by those who used CPAP for at least 4 hours per night (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95). This association was stronger for those with moderate to severe OSA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81).

“This study highlights the importance of long-term management of CPAP therapy in patients with moderate-severe OSA,” Dr. Mazzotti said in an interview.

“It suggests that maintaining good CPAP adherence might be beneficial for cardiovascular health, besides the already established benefits on quality of life, sleepiness, and other cardiometabolic functions,” he said.

Dr. Mazzotti said several mechanisms might explain the association between CPAP use and lower risk for CV events. “CPAP treats OSA by preventing respiratory pauses that occur during sleep, therefore preventing arousals, sleep fragmentation, and decreases in blood oxygen. These improved cardiorespiratory functions can be beneficial to avoid certain molecular changes that are known to contribute to cardiovascular risk, such as oxidative stress and inflammation,” he explained.

“However, specific studies fully understanding these mechanisms are necessary,” Dr. Mazzotti added.

In a comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said that “the frequent decreases in oxygen levels and fragmented sleep from apnea are associated with cardiovascular disorders. We know this from multiple studies. This, however, was a large study and strengthens the association between improving apnea and reduced serious cardiovascular events.”

Funding for the study was provided by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation and the American Heart Association. Dr. Mazzotti and Dr. Verma disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antihypertensive medications that cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may be linked with less memory decline, compared with other drugs for high blood pressure, suggest the findings of a meta-analysis.

Over a 3-year period, cognitively normal older adults taking BBB-crossing antihypertensives demonstrated superior verbal memory, compared with similar individuals receiving non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, reported lead author Jean K. Ho, PhD, of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, the findings add color to a known link between hypertension and neurologic degeneration, and may aid the search for new therapeutic targets.

“Hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, possibly through its effects on both cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ho and colleagues wrote in Hypertension. “Studies of antihypertensive treatments have reported possible salutary effects on cognition and cerebrovascular disease, as well as Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology.”

In a previous study, individuals younger than 75 years exposed to antihypertensives had an 8% decreased risk of dementia per year of use, while another trial showed that intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy reduced mild cognitive impairment by 19%.

“Despite these encouraging findings ... larger meta-analytic studies have been hampered by the fact that pharmacokinetic properties are typically not considered in existing studies or routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Ho and colleagues. “The present study sought to fill this gap [in that it was] a large and longitudinal meta-analytic study of existing data recoded to assess the effects of BBB-crossing potential in renin-angiotensin system [RAS] treatments among hypertensive adults.”
 

Methods and results

The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective observational studies. The researchers assessed data on 12,849 individuals from 14 cohorts that received either BBB-crossing or non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives.

The BBB-crossing properties of RAS treatments were identified by a literature review. Of ACE inhibitors, captopril, fosinopril, lisinopril, perindopril, ramipril, and trandolapril were classified as BBB crossing, and benazepril, enalapril, moexipril, and quinapril were classified as non–BBB-crossing. Of ARBs, telmisartan and candesartan were considered BBB-crossing, and olmesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, and losartan were tagged as non–BBB-crossing.

Cognition was assessed via the following seven domains: executive function, attention, verbal memory learning, language, mental status, recall, and processing speed.

Compared with individuals taking non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, those taking BBB-crossing agents had significantly superior verbal memory (recall), with a maximum effect size of 0.07 (P = .03).

According to the investigators, this finding was particularly noteworthy, as the BBB-crossing group had relatively higher vascular risk burden and lower mean education level.

“These differences make it all the more remarkable that the BBB-crossing group displayed better memory ability over time despite these cognitive disadvantages,” the investigators wrote.

Still, not all the findings favored BBB-crossing agents. Individuals in the BBB-crossing group had relatively inferior attention ability, with a minimum effect size of –0.17 (P = .02).

The other cognitive measures were not significantly different between groups.
 

Clinicians may consider findings after accounting for other factors

Principal investigator Daniel A. Nation, PhD, associate professor of psychological science and a faculty member of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, suggested that the small difference in verbal memory between groups could be clinically significant over a longer period of time.

“Although the overall effect size was pretty small, if you look at how long it would take for someone [with dementia] to progress over many years of decline, it would actually end up being a pretty big effect,” Dr. Nation said in an interview. “Small effect sizes could actually end up preventing a lot of cases of dementia,” he added.

The conflicting results in the BBB-crossing group – better verbal memory but worse attention ability – were “surprising,” he noted.

“I sort of didn’t believe it at first,” Dr. Nation said, “because the memory finding is sort of replication – we’d observed the same exact effect on memory in a smaller sample in another study. ... The attention [finding], going another way, was a new thing.”

Dr. Nation suggested that the intergroup differences in attention ability may stem from idiosyncrasies of the tests used to measure that domain, which can be impacted by cardiovascular or brain vascular disease. Or it could be caused by something else entirely, he said, noting that further investigation is needed.

He added that the improvements in verbal memory within the BBB-crossing group could be caused by direct effects on the brain. He pointed out that certain ACE polymorphisms have been linked with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and those same polymorphisms, in animal models, lead to neurodegeneration, with reversal possible through administration of ACE inhibitors.

“It could be that what we’re observing has nothing really to do with blood pressure,” Dr. Nation explained. “This could be a neuronal effect on learning memory systems.”

He went on to suggest that clinicians may consider these findings when selecting antihypertensive agents for their patients, with the caveat that all other prescribing factors have already been taking to account.

“In the event that you’re going to give an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker anyway, and it ends up being a somewhat arbitrary decision in terms of which specific drug you’re going to give, then perhaps this is a piece of information you would take into account – that one gets in the brain and one doesn’t – in somebody at risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. Nation said.
 

Exact mechanisms of action unknown

Hélène Girouard, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at the University of Montreal, said in an interview that the findings are “of considerable importance, knowing that brain alterations could begin as much as 30 years before manifestation of dementia.”

Since 2003, Dr. Girouard has been studying the cognitive effects of antihypertensive medications. She noted that previous studies involving rodents “have shown beneficial effects [of BBB-crossing antihypertensive drugs] on cognition independent of their effects on blood pressure.”

The drugs’ exact mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, according to Dr. Girouard, who offered several possible explanations, including amelioration of BBB disruption, brain inflammation, cerebral blood flow dysregulation, cholinergic dysfunction, and neurologic deficits. “Whether these mechanisms may explain Ho and colleagues’ observations remains to be established,” she added.

Andrea L. Schneider, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, applauded the study, but ultimately suggested that more research is needed to impact clinical decision-making.

“The results of this important and well-done study suggest that further investigation into targeted mechanism-based approaches to selecting hypertension treatment agents, with a specific focus on cognitive outcomes, is warranted,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview. “Before changing clinical practice, further work is necessary to disentangle contributions of medication mechanism, comorbid vascular risk factors, and achieved blood pressure reduction, among others.”

The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Waksman Foundation of Japan, and others. The interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Antihypertensive medications that cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may be linked with less memory decline, compared with other drugs for high blood pressure, suggest the findings of a meta-analysis.

Over a 3-year period, cognitively normal older adults taking BBB-crossing antihypertensives demonstrated superior verbal memory, compared with similar individuals receiving non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, reported lead author Jean K. Ho, PhD, of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, the findings add color to a known link between hypertension and neurologic degeneration, and may aid the search for new therapeutic targets.

“Hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, possibly through its effects on both cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ho and colleagues wrote in Hypertension. “Studies of antihypertensive treatments have reported possible salutary effects on cognition and cerebrovascular disease, as well as Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology.”

In a previous study, individuals younger than 75 years exposed to antihypertensives had an 8% decreased risk of dementia per year of use, while another trial showed that intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy reduced mild cognitive impairment by 19%.

“Despite these encouraging findings ... larger meta-analytic studies have been hampered by the fact that pharmacokinetic properties are typically not considered in existing studies or routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Ho and colleagues. “The present study sought to fill this gap [in that it was] a large and longitudinal meta-analytic study of existing data recoded to assess the effects of BBB-crossing potential in renin-angiotensin system [RAS] treatments among hypertensive adults.”
 

Methods and results

The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective observational studies. The researchers assessed data on 12,849 individuals from 14 cohorts that received either BBB-crossing or non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives.

The BBB-crossing properties of RAS treatments were identified by a literature review. Of ACE inhibitors, captopril, fosinopril, lisinopril, perindopril, ramipril, and trandolapril were classified as BBB crossing, and benazepril, enalapril, moexipril, and quinapril were classified as non–BBB-crossing. Of ARBs, telmisartan and candesartan were considered BBB-crossing, and olmesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, and losartan were tagged as non–BBB-crossing.

Cognition was assessed via the following seven domains: executive function, attention, verbal memory learning, language, mental status, recall, and processing speed.

Compared with individuals taking non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, those taking BBB-crossing agents had significantly superior verbal memory (recall), with a maximum effect size of 0.07 (P = .03).

According to the investigators, this finding was particularly noteworthy, as the BBB-crossing group had relatively higher vascular risk burden and lower mean education level.

“These differences make it all the more remarkable that the BBB-crossing group displayed better memory ability over time despite these cognitive disadvantages,” the investigators wrote.

Still, not all the findings favored BBB-crossing agents. Individuals in the BBB-crossing group had relatively inferior attention ability, with a minimum effect size of –0.17 (P = .02).

The other cognitive measures were not significantly different between groups.
 

Clinicians may consider findings after accounting for other factors

Principal investigator Daniel A. Nation, PhD, associate professor of psychological science and a faculty member of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, suggested that the small difference in verbal memory between groups could be clinically significant over a longer period of time.

“Although the overall effect size was pretty small, if you look at how long it would take for someone [with dementia] to progress over many years of decline, it would actually end up being a pretty big effect,” Dr. Nation said in an interview. “Small effect sizes could actually end up preventing a lot of cases of dementia,” he added.

The conflicting results in the BBB-crossing group – better verbal memory but worse attention ability – were “surprising,” he noted.

“I sort of didn’t believe it at first,” Dr. Nation said, “because the memory finding is sort of replication – we’d observed the same exact effect on memory in a smaller sample in another study. ... The attention [finding], going another way, was a new thing.”

Dr. Nation suggested that the intergroup differences in attention ability may stem from idiosyncrasies of the tests used to measure that domain, which can be impacted by cardiovascular or brain vascular disease. Or it could be caused by something else entirely, he said, noting that further investigation is needed.

He added that the improvements in verbal memory within the BBB-crossing group could be caused by direct effects on the brain. He pointed out that certain ACE polymorphisms have been linked with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and those same polymorphisms, in animal models, lead to neurodegeneration, with reversal possible through administration of ACE inhibitors.

“It could be that what we’re observing has nothing really to do with blood pressure,” Dr. Nation explained. “This could be a neuronal effect on learning memory systems.”

He went on to suggest that clinicians may consider these findings when selecting antihypertensive agents for their patients, with the caveat that all other prescribing factors have already been taking to account.

“In the event that you’re going to give an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker anyway, and it ends up being a somewhat arbitrary decision in terms of which specific drug you’re going to give, then perhaps this is a piece of information you would take into account – that one gets in the brain and one doesn’t – in somebody at risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. Nation said.
 

Exact mechanisms of action unknown

Hélène Girouard, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at the University of Montreal, said in an interview that the findings are “of considerable importance, knowing that brain alterations could begin as much as 30 years before manifestation of dementia.”

Since 2003, Dr. Girouard has been studying the cognitive effects of antihypertensive medications. She noted that previous studies involving rodents “have shown beneficial effects [of BBB-crossing antihypertensive drugs] on cognition independent of their effects on blood pressure.”

The drugs’ exact mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, according to Dr. Girouard, who offered several possible explanations, including amelioration of BBB disruption, brain inflammation, cerebral blood flow dysregulation, cholinergic dysfunction, and neurologic deficits. “Whether these mechanisms may explain Ho and colleagues’ observations remains to be established,” she added.

Andrea L. Schneider, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, applauded the study, but ultimately suggested that more research is needed to impact clinical decision-making.

“The results of this important and well-done study suggest that further investigation into targeted mechanism-based approaches to selecting hypertension treatment agents, with a specific focus on cognitive outcomes, is warranted,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview. “Before changing clinical practice, further work is necessary to disentangle contributions of medication mechanism, comorbid vascular risk factors, and achieved blood pressure reduction, among others.”

The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Waksman Foundation of Japan, and others. The interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Antihypertensive medications that cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may be linked with less memory decline, compared with other drugs for high blood pressure, suggest the findings of a meta-analysis.

Over a 3-year period, cognitively normal older adults taking BBB-crossing antihypertensives demonstrated superior verbal memory, compared with similar individuals receiving non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, reported lead author Jean K. Ho, PhD, of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, the findings add color to a known link between hypertension and neurologic degeneration, and may aid the search for new therapeutic targets.

“Hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, possibly through its effects on both cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ho and colleagues wrote in Hypertension. “Studies of antihypertensive treatments have reported possible salutary effects on cognition and cerebrovascular disease, as well as Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology.”

In a previous study, individuals younger than 75 years exposed to antihypertensives had an 8% decreased risk of dementia per year of use, while another trial showed that intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy reduced mild cognitive impairment by 19%.

“Despite these encouraging findings ... larger meta-analytic studies have been hampered by the fact that pharmacokinetic properties are typically not considered in existing studies or routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Ho and colleagues. “The present study sought to fill this gap [in that it was] a large and longitudinal meta-analytic study of existing data recoded to assess the effects of BBB-crossing potential in renin-angiotensin system [RAS] treatments among hypertensive adults.”
 

Methods and results

The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective observational studies. The researchers assessed data on 12,849 individuals from 14 cohorts that received either BBB-crossing or non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives.

The BBB-crossing properties of RAS treatments were identified by a literature review. Of ACE inhibitors, captopril, fosinopril, lisinopril, perindopril, ramipril, and trandolapril were classified as BBB crossing, and benazepril, enalapril, moexipril, and quinapril were classified as non–BBB-crossing. Of ARBs, telmisartan and candesartan were considered BBB-crossing, and olmesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, and losartan were tagged as non–BBB-crossing.

Cognition was assessed via the following seven domains: executive function, attention, verbal memory learning, language, mental status, recall, and processing speed.

Compared with individuals taking non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, those taking BBB-crossing agents had significantly superior verbal memory (recall), with a maximum effect size of 0.07 (P = .03).

According to the investigators, this finding was particularly noteworthy, as the BBB-crossing group had relatively higher vascular risk burden and lower mean education level.

“These differences make it all the more remarkable that the BBB-crossing group displayed better memory ability over time despite these cognitive disadvantages,” the investigators wrote.

Still, not all the findings favored BBB-crossing agents. Individuals in the BBB-crossing group had relatively inferior attention ability, with a minimum effect size of –0.17 (P = .02).

The other cognitive measures were not significantly different between groups.
 

Clinicians may consider findings after accounting for other factors

Principal investigator Daniel A. Nation, PhD, associate professor of psychological science and a faculty member of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, suggested that the small difference in verbal memory between groups could be clinically significant over a longer period of time.

“Although the overall effect size was pretty small, if you look at how long it would take for someone [with dementia] to progress over many years of decline, it would actually end up being a pretty big effect,” Dr. Nation said in an interview. “Small effect sizes could actually end up preventing a lot of cases of dementia,” he added.

The conflicting results in the BBB-crossing group – better verbal memory but worse attention ability – were “surprising,” he noted.

“I sort of didn’t believe it at first,” Dr. Nation said, “because the memory finding is sort of replication – we’d observed the same exact effect on memory in a smaller sample in another study. ... The attention [finding], going another way, was a new thing.”

Dr. Nation suggested that the intergroup differences in attention ability may stem from idiosyncrasies of the tests used to measure that domain, which can be impacted by cardiovascular or brain vascular disease. Or it could be caused by something else entirely, he said, noting that further investigation is needed.

He added that the improvements in verbal memory within the BBB-crossing group could be caused by direct effects on the brain. He pointed out that certain ACE polymorphisms have been linked with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and those same polymorphisms, in animal models, lead to neurodegeneration, with reversal possible through administration of ACE inhibitors.

“It could be that what we’re observing has nothing really to do with blood pressure,” Dr. Nation explained. “This could be a neuronal effect on learning memory systems.”

He went on to suggest that clinicians may consider these findings when selecting antihypertensive agents for their patients, with the caveat that all other prescribing factors have already been taking to account.

“In the event that you’re going to give an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker anyway, and it ends up being a somewhat arbitrary decision in terms of which specific drug you’re going to give, then perhaps this is a piece of information you would take into account – that one gets in the brain and one doesn’t – in somebody at risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. Nation said.
 

Exact mechanisms of action unknown

Hélène Girouard, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at the University of Montreal, said in an interview that the findings are “of considerable importance, knowing that brain alterations could begin as much as 30 years before manifestation of dementia.”

Since 2003, Dr. Girouard has been studying the cognitive effects of antihypertensive medications. She noted that previous studies involving rodents “have shown beneficial effects [of BBB-crossing antihypertensive drugs] on cognition independent of their effects on blood pressure.”

The drugs’ exact mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, according to Dr. Girouard, who offered several possible explanations, including amelioration of BBB disruption, brain inflammation, cerebral blood flow dysregulation, cholinergic dysfunction, and neurologic deficits. “Whether these mechanisms may explain Ho and colleagues’ observations remains to be established,” she added.

Andrea L. Schneider, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, applauded the study, but ultimately suggested that more research is needed to impact clinical decision-making.

“The results of this important and well-done study suggest that further investigation into targeted mechanism-based approaches to selecting hypertension treatment agents, with a specific focus on cognitive outcomes, is warranted,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview. “Before changing clinical practice, further work is necessary to disentangle contributions of medication mechanism, comorbid vascular risk factors, and achieved blood pressure reduction, among others.”

The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Waksman Foundation of Japan, and others. The interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Telemedicine has been proposed as a solution for an array of health care access problems over decades of gradual growth. The vast ramping up of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic greatly expanded the evidence of its feasibility and what appears to be its inevitable incorporation into models of care, according to an update at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

American College of Chest Physicians Health Policy and Advocacy

“The cat is out of the bag,” said Jaspal Singh, MD, professor of medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. Due to changes in access and reimbursement to telemedicine driven by the pandemic, he said, “we now have permission to explore new models of care.”

Prior to February 2020, telemedicine was crawling forward at a leisurely pace, according to Dr. Singh. After March 2020, it broke into a run due to enormous demand and was met by a rapid response from the U.S. Congress. The first of four legislative bills that directly or indirectly supported telemedicine was passed on March 6, 2020.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services responded in kind, making modifications in a number of rules that removed obstacles to telehealth. One modification on April 6, 2020, for example, removed the requirement for a preexisting relationship between the clinician and patient, Dr. Singh said. The CMS also subsequently modified reimbursement policies in order to make telemedicine more tenable for physicians.

Given the risk of contagion from face-to-face encounters, telemedicine in the early days of the pandemic was not just attractive but the only practical and safe approach to medical care in many circumstances. Physicians and patients were anxious for health care that did not require in-office visits even though many critical issues for telemedicine, including its relative effectiveness, had not yet been fully evaluated.

Much has been learned regarding the feasibility and acceptability of telemedicine during the pandemic, but Dr. Singh noted that quality of care relative to in-person visits remains weakly supported for most indications. Indeed, he outlined sizable list of incompletely resolved issues, including optimal payment models, management of privacy concerns, and how to balance advantages to disadvantages.

For patients and physicians, the strengths of telemedicine include greater convenience made possible by the elimination of travel and waiting rooms. For the health care system, it can include less infrastructure and overhead. For many physicians, telemedicine might be perceived as more efficient.

On the other hand, some patients might feel that a clinical encounter is incomplete without a physical examination even when the physician does not feel the physical examination is needed, according to Dr. Singh. He cited a survey suggesting nearly half of patients expressed concern about a lack of connection to health care providers following a virtual visit.

In the same 2020 National Poll on Healthy Aging 2020 survey conducted by the University of Michigan 67% of respondents reported that the quality of care was not as good as that provided by in-patient visits, and 24% expressed concern about privacy. However, at the time the poll was taken in May 2020, experience with telemedicine among many of the respondents may have been limited. As telemedicine is integrated into routine care, perceptions might change as experience increases.

A distinction between telemedicine in routine care and telemedicine as a strategy to respond to a pandemic is important, Dr. Singh indicated. Dr. Singh was the lead author for a position paper on telemedicine for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 5 years ago, but he acknowledged that models of care might differ when responding to abnormal surges in health care demand.

The surge in demand for COVID-19–related care engendered numerous innovative solutions. As examples, Dr. Singh recounted how a virtual hospital was created at his own institution. In a published study, 1,477 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over a 6-week period remained at home and received care in a virtual observation unit (VCU) or a virtual acute care unit (VACU) . Only a small percentage required eventual hospital admission. In the VACU, patients were able to receive advanced care including IV fluids and some form of respiratory support .

It is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic will change telemedicine. Now, with declining cases of the infection, telemedicine is back to a walk after the sprint required during the height of the pandemic, according to Dr. Singh. However, Dr. Singh thinks many physicians and patients will have a different perception of telemedicine after the widespread exposure to this type of care.

In terms of the relative role of in-patient and virtual visits across indications, “we do not know how this will play out, but we will probably end up toggling between the two,” Dr. Singh said.

This is an area that is being followed closely by the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, according to Kathleen Sarmiento, MD, director, VISN 21 Sleep Clinical Resource Hub for the San Francisco VA Health Care System. A member of that committee and moderator of the session in which Dr. Singh spoke,

American College of Chest Physicians Health Policy and Advocacy Conference

Dr. Sarmiento called the effort to bring permanent coverage of telehealth services “the shared responsibility of every medical society engaged in advocacy.”

However, she cautioned that there might be intended and unintended consequences from telehealth that require analysis to develop policies that are in the best interests of effective care. She said, the “ACCP, along with its sister societies, does have a role in supporting the evaluation of the impact of these changes on both patients and providers in the fields of pulmonary medicine, critical care, and sleep medicine.”

Dr. Singh reports a financial relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Sarmiento reports no relevant financial relationship with AstraZeneca.

Telemedicine has been proposed as a solution for an array of health care access problems over decades of gradual growth. The vast ramping up of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic greatly expanded the evidence of its feasibility and what appears to be its inevitable incorporation into models of care, according to an update at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

American College of Chest Physicians Health Policy and Advocacy

“The cat is out of the bag,” said Jaspal Singh, MD, professor of medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. Due to changes in access and reimbursement to telemedicine driven by the pandemic, he said, “we now have permission to explore new models of care.”

Prior to February 2020, telemedicine was crawling forward at a leisurely pace, according to Dr. Singh. After March 2020, it broke into a run due to enormous demand and was met by a rapid response from the U.S. Congress. The first of four legislative bills that directly or indirectly supported telemedicine was passed on March 6, 2020.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services responded in kind, making modifications in a number of rules that removed obstacles to telehealth. One modification on April 6, 2020, for example, removed the requirement for a preexisting relationship between the clinician and patient, Dr. Singh said. The CMS also subsequently modified reimbursement policies in order to make telemedicine more tenable for physicians.

Given the risk of contagion from face-to-face encounters, telemedicine in the early days of the pandemic was not just attractive but the only practical and safe approach to medical care in many circumstances. Physicians and patients were anxious for health care that did not require in-office visits even though many critical issues for telemedicine, including its relative effectiveness, had not yet been fully evaluated.

Much has been learned regarding the feasibility and acceptability of telemedicine during the pandemic, but Dr. Singh noted that quality of care relative to in-person visits remains weakly supported for most indications. Indeed, he outlined sizable list of incompletely resolved issues, including optimal payment models, management of privacy concerns, and how to balance advantages to disadvantages.

For patients and physicians, the strengths of telemedicine include greater convenience made possible by the elimination of travel and waiting rooms. For the health care system, it can include less infrastructure and overhead. For many physicians, telemedicine might be perceived as more efficient.

On the other hand, some patients might feel that a clinical encounter is incomplete without a physical examination even when the physician does not feel the physical examination is needed, according to Dr. Singh. He cited a survey suggesting nearly half of patients expressed concern about a lack of connection to health care providers following a virtual visit.

In the same 2020 National Poll on Healthy Aging 2020 survey conducted by the University of Michigan 67% of respondents reported that the quality of care was not as good as that provided by in-patient visits, and 24% expressed concern about privacy. However, at the time the poll was taken in May 2020, experience with telemedicine among many of the respondents may have been limited. As telemedicine is integrated into routine care, perceptions might change as experience increases.

A distinction between telemedicine in routine care and telemedicine as a strategy to respond to a pandemic is important, Dr. Singh indicated. Dr. Singh was the lead author for a position paper on telemedicine for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 5 years ago, but he acknowledged that models of care might differ when responding to abnormal surges in health care demand.

The surge in demand for COVID-19–related care engendered numerous innovative solutions. As examples, Dr. Singh recounted how a virtual hospital was created at his own institution. In a published study, 1,477 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over a 6-week period remained at home and received care in a virtual observation unit (VCU) or a virtual acute care unit (VACU) . Only a small percentage required eventual hospital admission. In the VACU, patients were able to receive advanced care including IV fluids and some form of respiratory support .

It is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic will change telemedicine. Now, with declining cases of the infection, telemedicine is back to a walk after the sprint required during the height of the pandemic, according to Dr. Singh. However, Dr. Singh thinks many physicians and patients will have a different perception of telemedicine after the widespread exposure to this type of care.

In terms of the relative role of in-patient and virtual visits across indications, “we do not know how this will play out, but we will probably end up toggling between the two,” Dr. Singh said.

This is an area that is being followed closely by the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, according to Kathleen Sarmiento, MD, director, VISN 21 Sleep Clinical Resource Hub for the San Francisco VA Health Care System. A member of that committee and moderator of the session in which Dr. Singh spoke,

American College of Chest Physicians Health Policy and Advocacy Conference

Dr. Sarmiento called the effort to bring permanent coverage of telehealth services “the shared responsibility of every medical society engaged in advocacy.”

However, she cautioned that there might be intended and unintended consequences from telehealth that require analysis to develop policies that are in the best interests of effective care. She said, the “ACCP, along with its sister societies, does have a role in supporting the evaluation of the impact of these changes on both patients and providers in the fields of pulmonary medicine, critical care, and sleep medicine.”

Dr. Singh reports a financial relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Sarmiento reports no relevant financial relationship with AstraZeneca.

Telemedicine has been proposed as a solution for an array of health care access problems over decades of gradual growth. The vast ramping up of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic greatly expanded the evidence of its feasibility and what appears to be its inevitable incorporation into models of care, according to an update at the annual health policy and advocacy conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

American College of Chest Physicians Health Policy and Advocacy

“The cat is out of the bag,” said Jaspal Singh, MD, professor of medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. Due to changes in access and reimbursement to telemedicine driven by the pandemic, he said, “we now have permission to explore new models of care.”

Prior to February 2020, telemedicine was crawling forward at a leisurely pace, according to Dr. Singh. After March 2020, it broke into a run due to enormous demand and was met by a rapid response from the U.S. Congress. The first of four legislative bills that directly or indirectly supported telemedicine was passed on March 6, 2020.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services responded in kind, making modifications in a number of rules that removed obstacles to telehealth. One modification on April 6, 2020, for example, removed the requirement for a preexisting relationship between the clinician and patient, Dr. Singh said. The CMS also subsequently modified reimbursement policies in order to make telemedicine more tenable for physicians.

Given the risk of contagion from face-to-face encounters, telemedicine in the early days of the pandemic was not just attractive but the only practical and safe approach to medical care in many circumstances. Physicians and patients were anxious for health care that did not require in-office visits even though many critical issues for telemedicine, including its relative effectiveness, had not yet been fully evaluated.

Much has been learned regarding the feasibility and acceptability of telemedicine during the pandemic, but Dr. Singh noted that quality of care relative to in-person visits remains weakly supported for most indications. Indeed, he outlined sizable list of incompletely resolved issues, including optimal payment models, management of privacy concerns, and how to balance advantages to disadvantages.

For patients and physicians, the strengths of telemedicine include greater convenience made possible by the elimination of travel and waiting rooms. For the health care system, it can include less infrastructure and overhead. For many physicians, telemedicine might be perceived as more efficient.

On the other hand, some patients might feel that a clinical encounter is incomplete without a physical examination even when the physician does not feel the physical examination is needed, according to Dr. Singh. He cited a survey suggesting nearly half of patients expressed concern about a lack of connection to health care providers following a virtual visit.

In the same 2020 National Poll on Healthy Aging 2020 survey conducted by the University of Michigan 67% of respondents reported that the quality of care was not as good as that provided by in-patient visits, and 24% expressed concern about privacy. However, at the time the poll was taken in May 2020, experience with telemedicine among many of the respondents may have been limited. As telemedicine is integrated into routine care, perceptions might change as experience increases.

A distinction between telemedicine in routine care and telemedicine as a strategy to respond to a pandemic is important, Dr. Singh indicated. Dr. Singh was the lead author for a position paper on telemedicine for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 5 years ago, but he acknowledged that models of care might differ when responding to abnormal surges in health care demand.

The surge in demand for COVID-19–related care engendered numerous innovative solutions. As examples, Dr. Singh recounted how a virtual hospital was created at his own institution. In a published study, 1,477 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over a 6-week period remained at home and received care in a virtual observation unit (VCU) or a virtual acute care unit (VACU) . Only a small percentage required eventual hospital admission. In the VACU, patients were able to receive advanced care including IV fluids and some form of respiratory support .

It is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic will change telemedicine. Now, with declining cases of the infection, telemedicine is back to a walk after the sprint required during the height of the pandemic, according to Dr. Singh. However, Dr. Singh thinks many physicians and patients will have a different perception of telemedicine after the widespread exposure to this type of care.

In terms of the relative role of in-patient and virtual visits across indications, “we do not know how this will play out, but we will probably end up toggling between the two,” Dr. Singh said.

This is an area that is being followed closely by the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee, according to Kathleen Sarmiento, MD, director, VISN 21 Sleep Clinical Resource Hub for the San Francisco VA Health Care System. A member of that committee and moderator of the session in which Dr. Singh spoke,

American College of Chest Physicians Health Policy and Advocacy Conference

Dr. Sarmiento called the effort to bring permanent coverage of telehealth services “the shared responsibility of every medical society engaged in advocacy.”

However, she cautioned that there might be intended and unintended consequences from telehealth that require analysis to develop policies that are in the best interests of effective care. She said, the “ACCP, along with its sister societies, does have a role in supporting the evaluation of the impact of these changes on both patients and providers in the fields of pulmonary medicine, critical care, and sleep medicine.”

Dr. Singh reports a financial relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Sarmiento reports no relevant financial relationship with AstraZeneca.

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A delaying tactic used by some U.S. health insurers to limit coverage of bariatric surgery does not jibe with the clinical experience at one U.S. center with 461 patients who underwent primary or revisional bariatric surgery.

PhotoDisk

The tactic applies to patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) of 35-39 kg/m² who usually also need at least one comorbidity to qualify for insurance coverage for bariatric surgery, and specifically to the subgroup for whom hypertension is the qualifying comorbidity.

Some insurers limit surgery coverage to patients with hypertension who fail to reach their goal blood pressure on agents from three different drug classes, a policy that is “extremely frustrating and dangerous,” said Yannis Raftopoulos, MD, PhD, in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Using number of antihypertensive drugs ‘is not correct’

“Using the number of antihypertensive medications to justify surgery is not correct because blood pressure control is not [always] better when patients take two or three medications, compared with when they are taking one. This harms patients because the more severe their hypertension, the worse their control,” said Dr. Raftopoulos, director of the weight management program at Holyoke (Mass.) Medical Center.

He presented findings from a retrospective study of 461 patients who underwent either sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at his center, including 213 (46%) diagnosed with hypertension at the time of their surgery. Within this group were 68 patients with a BMI of 35-39, which meant that they could get insurance coverage for bariatric surgery only if they also had a relevant comorbidity such as hypertension, diabetes, or severe sleep apnea.

Among these patients, 36 (17% of those with hypertension) had only hypertension as their relevant comorbidity and would not have qualified for bariatric surgery under the strictest criteria applied by some insurers that require patients to remain hypertensive despite treatment with at least three different antihypertensive medications. (These 36 patients underwent bariatric surgery because their insurance coverage did not have this restriction.)

The analyses Dr. Raftopoulos presented also documented the rate of hypertension resolution among patients in the series who had hypertension at baseline and 1-year follow-up results. Among 65 patients on one antihypertensive drug at baseline, 43 (66%) had complete resolution of their hypertension after 1 year, defined as blood pressure of less than 130/90 mm Hg while completely off antihypertensive treatment. In contrast, among 55 patients on two antihypertensive medications at baseline, 28 (51%) had complete resolution after 1 year, and among 24 patients on three or more antihypertensive medications at baseline, 3 (13%) had complete resolution 1 year after bariatric surgery, he reported.

“Patients who were treated with one oral antihypertensive medication preoperatively had a higher likelihood of postoperative hypertension resolution,” concluded Dr. Raftopoulos.

Restricting access to bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of less than 40 based on the preoperative intensity of their antihypertensive treatment “is not supported by our data, and can be potentially harmful,” he declared.

“This study was the result of discussions about this problem with multiple insurers in my area,” he added. “This affects a good number of patients.”

Waiting for hypertension to become less treatable

The results Dr. Raftopoulos presented “are not surprising, because they confirm the hypothesis that earlier intervention in the course of a disease like hypertension is more likely to be successful,” commented Bruce D. Schirmer, MD, a professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and designated discussant for the report.

The policy followed by some health insurers to delay coverage for bariatric surgery until patients fail three medications “forces patients with more treatable hypertension to wait until their disease worsens and becomes less treatable before they can receive appropriate treatment,” he said.

Dr. Schirmer attributed the motivation for this approach to a “despicable” and “reprehensible” reason: “Actuarial calculations that show paying for curative therapy is not cost effective in the short term. The duration of a patient’s policy may not be long enough to yield a positive financial outcome, so it becomes more appropriate to deny optimal care and have patients become sicker from their disease.”

“I applaud the authors for accumulating the data that point out this unfortunate rule of some insurance companies,” Dr. Schirmer added.

The practice is comparable with an insurer requiring that a patient’s cancer must be metastatic before allowing coverage for treatment, commented Ann M. Rogers, MD, professor and director of the Penn State University surgical weight loss program in Hershey, Penn., and a moderator of the session.

Dr. Raftopoulos, Dr. Schirmer, and Dr. Rogers had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A delaying tactic used by some U.S. health insurers to limit coverage of bariatric surgery does not jibe with the clinical experience at one U.S. center with 461 patients who underwent primary or revisional bariatric surgery.

PhotoDisk

The tactic applies to patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) of 35-39 kg/m² who usually also need at least one comorbidity to qualify for insurance coverage for bariatric surgery, and specifically to the subgroup for whom hypertension is the qualifying comorbidity.

Some insurers limit surgery coverage to patients with hypertension who fail to reach their goal blood pressure on agents from three different drug classes, a policy that is “extremely frustrating and dangerous,” said Yannis Raftopoulos, MD, PhD, in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Using number of antihypertensive drugs ‘is not correct’

“Using the number of antihypertensive medications to justify surgery is not correct because blood pressure control is not [always] better when patients take two or three medications, compared with when they are taking one. This harms patients because the more severe their hypertension, the worse their control,” said Dr. Raftopoulos, director of the weight management program at Holyoke (Mass.) Medical Center.

He presented findings from a retrospective study of 461 patients who underwent either sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at his center, including 213 (46%) diagnosed with hypertension at the time of their surgery. Within this group were 68 patients with a BMI of 35-39, which meant that they could get insurance coverage for bariatric surgery only if they also had a relevant comorbidity such as hypertension, diabetes, or severe sleep apnea.

Among these patients, 36 (17% of those with hypertension) had only hypertension as their relevant comorbidity and would not have qualified for bariatric surgery under the strictest criteria applied by some insurers that require patients to remain hypertensive despite treatment with at least three different antihypertensive medications. (These 36 patients underwent bariatric surgery because their insurance coverage did not have this restriction.)

The analyses Dr. Raftopoulos presented also documented the rate of hypertension resolution among patients in the series who had hypertension at baseline and 1-year follow-up results. Among 65 patients on one antihypertensive drug at baseline, 43 (66%) had complete resolution of their hypertension after 1 year, defined as blood pressure of less than 130/90 mm Hg while completely off antihypertensive treatment. In contrast, among 55 patients on two antihypertensive medications at baseline, 28 (51%) had complete resolution after 1 year, and among 24 patients on three or more antihypertensive medications at baseline, 3 (13%) had complete resolution 1 year after bariatric surgery, he reported.

“Patients who were treated with one oral antihypertensive medication preoperatively had a higher likelihood of postoperative hypertension resolution,” concluded Dr. Raftopoulos.

Restricting access to bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of less than 40 based on the preoperative intensity of their antihypertensive treatment “is not supported by our data, and can be potentially harmful,” he declared.

“This study was the result of discussions about this problem with multiple insurers in my area,” he added. “This affects a good number of patients.”

Waiting for hypertension to become less treatable

The results Dr. Raftopoulos presented “are not surprising, because they confirm the hypothesis that earlier intervention in the course of a disease like hypertension is more likely to be successful,” commented Bruce D. Schirmer, MD, a professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and designated discussant for the report.

The policy followed by some health insurers to delay coverage for bariatric surgery until patients fail three medications “forces patients with more treatable hypertension to wait until their disease worsens and becomes less treatable before they can receive appropriate treatment,” he said.

Dr. Schirmer attributed the motivation for this approach to a “despicable” and “reprehensible” reason: “Actuarial calculations that show paying for curative therapy is not cost effective in the short term. The duration of a patient’s policy may not be long enough to yield a positive financial outcome, so it becomes more appropriate to deny optimal care and have patients become sicker from their disease.”

“I applaud the authors for accumulating the data that point out this unfortunate rule of some insurance companies,” Dr. Schirmer added.

The practice is comparable with an insurer requiring that a patient’s cancer must be metastatic before allowing coverage for treatment, commented Ann M. Rogers, MD, professor and director of the Penn State University surgical weight loss program in Hershey, Penn., and a moderator of the session.

Dr. Raftopoulos, Dr. Schirmer, and Dr. Rogers had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A delaying tactic used by some U.S. health insurers to limit coverage of bariatric surgery does not jibe with the clinical experience at one U.S. center with 461 patients who underwent primary or revisional bariatric surgery.

PhotoDisk

The tactic applies to patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) of 35-39 kg/m² who usually also need at least one comorbidity to qualify for insurance coverage for bariatric surgery, and specifically to the subgroup for whom hypertension is the qualifying comorbidity.

Some insurers limit surgery coverage to patients with hypertension who fail to reach their goal blood pressure on agents from three different drug classes, a policy that is “extremely frustrating and dangerous,” said Yannis Raftopoulos, MD, PhD, in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Using number of antihypertensive drugs ‘is not correct’

“Using the number of antihypertensive medications to justify surgery is not correct because blood pressure control is not [always] better when patients take two or three medications, compared with when they are taking one. This harms patients because the more severe their hypertension, the worse their control,” said Dr. Raftopoulos, director of the weight management program at Holyoke (Mass.) Medical Center.

He presented findings from a retrospective study of 461 patients who underwent either sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at his center, including 213 (46%) diagnosed with hypertension at the time of their surgery. Within this group were 68 patients with a BMI of 35-39, which meant that they could get insurance coverage for bariatric surgery only if they also had a relevant comorbidity such as hypertension, diabetes, or severe sleep apnea.

Among these patients, 36 (17% of those with hypertension) had only hypertension as their relevant comorbidity and would not have qualified for bariatric surgery under the strictest criteria applied by some insurers that require patients to remain hypertensive despite treatment with at least three different antihypertensive medications. (These 36 patients underwent bariatric surgery because their insurance coverage did not have this restriction.)

The analyses Dr. Raftopoulos presented also documented the rate of hypertension resolution among patients in the series who had hypertension at baseline and 1-year follow-up results. Among 65 patients on one antihypertensive drug at baseline, 43 (66%) had complete resolution of their hypertension after 1 year, defined as blood pressure of less than 130/90 mm Hg while completely off antihypertensive treatment. In contrast, among 55 patients on two antihypertensive medications at baseline, 28 (51%) had complete resolution after 1 year, and among 24 patients on three or more antihypertensive medications at baseline, 3 (13%) had complete resolution 1 year after bariatric surgery, he reported.

“Patients who were treated with one oral antihypertensive medication preoperatively had a higher likelihood of postoperative hypertension resolution,” concluded Dr. Raftopoulos.

Restricting access to bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of less than 40 based on the preoperative intensity of their antihypertensive treatment “is not supported by our data, and can be potentially harmful,” he declared.

“This study was the result of discussions about this problem with multiple insurers in my area,” he added. “This affects a good number of patients.”

Waiting for hypertension to become less treatable

The results Dr. Raftopoulos presented “are not surprising, because they confirm the hypothesis that earlier intervention in the course of a disease like hypertension is more likely to be successful,” commented Bruce D. Schirmer, MD, a professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and designated discussant for the report.

The policy followed by some health insurers to delay coverage for bariatric surgery until patients fail three medications “forces patients with more treatable hypertension to wait until their disease worsens and becomes less treatable before they can receive appropriate treatment,” he said.

Dr. Schirmer attributed the motivation for this approach to a “despicable” and “reprehensible” reason: “Actuarial calculations that show paying for curative therapy is not cost effective in the short term. The duration of a patient’s policy may not be long enough to yield a positive financial outcome, so it becomes more appropriate to deny optimal care and have patients become sicker from their disease.”

“I applaud the authors for accumulating the data that point out this unfortunate rule of some insurance companies,” Dr. Schirmer added.

The practice is comparable with an insurer requiring that a patient’s cancer must be metastatic before allowing coverage for treatment, commented Ann M. Rogers, MD, professor and director of the Penn State University surgical weight loss program in Hershey, Penn., and a moderator of the session.

Dr. Raftopoulos, Dr. Schirmer, and Dr. Rogers had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) carries mandates most physician practices must follow to make their offices accessible so as to not discriminate against patients with disabilities when providing care. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.

ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.

A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:

• The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
• There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
• An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.

This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.

Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:

• Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
• For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
• “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.

A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.

Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
 

• Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
• Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
• Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).

Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
 

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.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) carries mandates most physician practices must follow to make their offices accessible so as to not discriminate against patients with disabilities when providing care. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.

ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.

A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:

• The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
• There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
• An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.

This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.

Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:

• Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
• For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
• “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.

A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.

Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
 

• Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
• Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
• Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).

Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
 

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.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) carries mandates most physician practices must follow to make their offices accessible so as to not discriminate against patients with disabilities when providing care. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.

ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.

A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:

• The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
• There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
• An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.

This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.

Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:

• Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
• For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
• “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.

A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.

Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
 

• Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
• Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
• Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).

Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
 

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.