MDedge Endocrinology

A program in which optometrists conduct in-office diabetes screening is now being expanded based on successful pilot data.

Attila Barabas/Thinkstock

The program is sponsored by VSP Vision Care, a vision benefits company with over 40,000 network optometrists and nearly 90 million consumer members worldwide. “Optometrists are often the first to detect signs of diabetes by looking at the blood vessels in the eye during a comprehensive eye exam,” the company said in a statement.

In the pilot program, conducted from May 2019 to February 2020* in 12 VSP practices in five states, 818 patients who had come in for their annual vision exam were given the American Diabetes Association Risk Test for type 2 diabetes, and 287 identified at risk were offered an in-office fingerstick hemoglobin A1c test.

Materials were provided free to the optometrists, who were paid a professional fee to perform the HbA1c screenings.

Of the 287 eligible for the HbA1c test, 85% took it. Of those 244, 31% and 5% had levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range, respectively. None had been aware of their status previously, and 92% rated the screening as an extremely or very positive experience.

Now, VSP is expanding the pilot program for another year with two large clients in Ohio covering about 90,000 members.

“Coupled with the fact that VSP members are more likely to get their annual eye exam over their annual physical exam with their primary care physician, HbA1c screenings provided by eye doctors offer another critical way to detect the chronic condition earlier and help prevent eye disease and even vision loss caused by diabetes,” according to the statement.

In an interview, a VSP spokesperson explained that if the patient provides their primary care provider information to the optometrist, the optometrist will send a referral with exam information to that provider and also instruct the patient to make an appointment with the provider for follow-up testing and care.

The optometrist also educates the patient about the connection between eye health and overall health and provides them with a flier that gives tips on lifestyle changes they can make to help slow or prevent the progression to type 2 diabetes, the spokesperson said.

Thirty states, including Ohio, allow optometrists to perform in-office blood testing, including HbA1c screening, provided they obtain a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Certificate of Waiver. VSP is providing online training for participating optometrists on administering the HbA1c screening.

The pilot program is part of an alliance between VSP and the American Diabetes Association formed in November 2019 to raise awareness of eye health in people with diabetes and those at risk for it.

*Correction: The original article included the wrong end date for the pilot program.

A program in which optometrists conduct in-office diabetes screening is now being expanded based on successful pilot data.

Attila Barabas/Thinkstock

The program is sponsored by VSP Vision Care, a vision benefits company with over 40,000 network optometrists and nearly 90 million consumer members worldwide. “Optometrists are often the first to detect signs of diabetes by looking at the blood vessels in the eye during a comprehensive eye exam,” the company said in a statement.

In the pilot program, conducted from May 2019 to February 2020* in 12 VSP practices in five states, 818 patients who had come in for their annual vision exam were given the American Diabetes Association Risk Test for type 2 diabetes, and 287 identified at risk were offered an in-office fingerstick hemoglobin A1c test.

Materials were provided free to the optometrists, who were paid a professional fee to perform the HbA1c screenings.

Of the 287 eligible for the HbA1c test, 85% took it. Of those 244, 31% and 5% had levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range, respectively. None had been aware of their status previously, and 92% rated the screening as an extremely or very positive experience.

Now, VSP is expanding the pilot program for another year with two large clients in Ohio covering about 90,000 members.

“Coupled with the fact that VSP members are more likely to get their annual eye exam over their annual physical exam with their primary care physician, HbA1c screenings provided by eye doctors offer another critical way to detect the chronic condition earlier and help prevent eye disease and even vision loss caused by diabetes,” according to the statement.

In an interview, a VSP spokesperson explained that if the patient provides their primary care provider information to the optometrist, the optometrist will send a referral with exam information to that provider and also instruct the patient to make an appointment with the provider for follow-up testing and care.

The optometrist also educates the patient about the connection between eye health and overall health and provides them with a flier that gives tips on lifestyle changes they can make to help slow or prevent the progression to type 2 diabetes, the spokesperson said.

Thirty states, including Ohio, allow optometrists to perform in-office blood testing, including HbA1c screening, provided they obtain a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Certificate of Waiver. VSP is providing online training for participating optometrists on administering the HbA1c screening.

The pilot program is part of an alliance between VSP and the American Diabetes Association formed in November 2019 to raise awareness of eye health in people with diabetes and those at risk for it.

*Correction: The original article included the wrong end date for the pilot program.

A program in which optometrists conduct in-office diabetes screening is now being expanded based on successful pilot data.

Attila Barabas/Thinkstock

The program is sponsored by VSP Vision Care, a vision benefits company with over 40,000 network optometrists and nearly 90 million consumer members worldwide. “Optometrists are often the first to detect signs of diabetes by looking at the blood vessels in the eye during a comprehensive eye exam,” the company said in a statement.

In the pilot program, conducted from May 2019 to February 2020* in 12 VSP practices in five states, 818 patients who had come in for their annual vision exam were given the American Diabetes Association Risk Test for type 2 diabetes, and 287 identified at risk were offered an in-office fingerstick hemoglobin A1c test.

Materials were provided free to the optometrists, who were paid a professional fee to perform the HbA1c screenings.

Of the 287 eligible for the HbA1c test, 85% took it. Of those 244, 31% and 5% had levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range, respectively. None had been aware of their status previously, and 92% rated the screening as an extremely or very positive experience.

Now, VSP is expanding the pilot program for another year with two large clients in Ohio covering about 90,000 members.

“Coupled with the fact that VSP members are more likely to get their annual eye exam over their annual physical exam with their primary care physician, HbA1c screenings provided by eye doctors offer another critical way to detect the chronic condition earlier and help prevent eye disease and even vision loss caused by diabetes,” according to the statement.

In an interview, a VSP spokesperson explained that if the patient provides their primary care provider information to the optometrist, the optometrist will send a referral with exam information to that provider and also instruct the patient to make an appointment with the provider for follow-up testing and care.

The optometrist also educates the patient about the connection between eye health and overall health and provides them with a flier that gives tips on lifestyle changes they can make to help slow or prevent the progression to type 2 diabetes, the spokesperson said.

Thirty states, including Ohio, allow optometrists to perform in-office blood testing, including HbA1c screening, provided they obtain a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Certificate of Waiver. VSP is providing online training for participating optometrists on administering the HbA1c screening.

The pilot program is part of an alliance between VSP and the American Diabetes Association formed in November 2019 to raise awareness of eye health in people with diabetes and those at risk for it.

*Correction: The original article included the wrong end date for the pilot program.

Physician practices nationwide lost 32% of their revenue, on average, from February to the summer, according to a new American Medical Association survey of 3,500 physicians, conducted from mid-July to August. That period coincided with the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

A third of practices reported a revenue drop of 25%-49%; 15% said their volume had fallen by 50%-74%, and 4% saw a decrease of 75% or more.

Because of the pandemic, 81% of physicians were providing fewer in-person visits than in February. In-person visits dropped by 50% or more for more than one-third of physicians. The average number of in-person visits fell from 95 to 57 per week.

Physicians who responded to the survey held an average of six weekly telehealth visits before the pandemic, 29 at the height of the pandemic in the spring, and 16 the week they were surveyed. About 20% of respondents with any telehealth visits had conducted them before the pandemic, 77% at the height of the crisis, and 68% in the survey week.

Among the doctors who weren’t involved in telehealth visits before the pandemic, only 23% conducted them at the pandemic’s peak; 12% conducted them in the survey week.

Despite the telehealth increase, almost 70% of physicians were providing fewer total visits, including in-person and virtual encounters, than before the pandemic, the survey showed. About 21% saw a decrease of 25%-49%; 11%, a drop of 50%-74%; and 10%, a falloff of at least 75%. On average, total visits fell from 101 to 72 per week.
 

Other surveys more upbeat

A larger survey by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the technology company Phreesia found that total outpatient visits in early October had rebounded to the level of March 1. This was a major turnaround from late March, when visits had plunged by nearly 60%.

According to the Harvard/Commonwealth Fund’s ongoing survey, visits started recovering in late June, although they were still off by 10%. They began rising further around Labor Day. The AMA researchers began conducting their survey in mid-June. The summertime surge in COVID-19 likely accounted for their finding that practice revenues were off by a third from the February baseline.

If so, the return to normalcy early this month may not represent the current situation as the virus sweeps across the country for a third time. In any case, even if patient visits and revenues have recovered more than the AMA data indicate, most practices will not have recovered from their losses earlier in the year.

A third survey more closely mirrors the AMA results. At the end of June, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association, revenues for the association’s members were 76% of what they had been in June 2019, and patient volume was 78% of that in the previous year.
 

Practice expenses rise

The AMA survey also found that, since February, practice spending on personal protective equipment (PPE) had increased by 57% or more, on average. About 64% of practice owners said their PPE expenditures were up from what they had been before the pandemic. For nearly 40% of practice owners, this expense had increased by 50% or more.

About 36% of the respondents said that acquiring PPE was very or extremely difficult. This was an especially big challenge for smaller practices, which do not have the purchasing power to compete with big health care systems for masks, gowns, and gloves, the AMA noted.

About 41% of doctors in practices with one to five physicians said they had difficulty getting PPE, compared with 30% of those in practices of 50 or more doctors. Only 25% of respondents in practices owned by hospitals and health systems said this was a problem.

Acquiring sufficient PPE is just one factor in the increase in practice expenses attributable to COVID-19. Still, it is indicative of the financial woes affecting physicians during the pandemic.

Nearly all respondents agreed that federal financial relief early in the pandemic was helpful and was appreciated. Among these programs was the CARES Act, which authorized the Provider Relief Fund, which accepted applications through Aug.28; the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payment Program, which was suspended in April; and the SBA Paycheck Protection Program, which ended on Aug. 8.

To date, Congress had not approved the renewal of any these programs.

“Physician practices continue to be under significant financial stress due to reductions in patient volume and revenue, in addition to higher expenses for supplies that are scarce for some physicians,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in a news release on the survey’s findings. “More economic relief is needed now from Congress as some medical practices contemplate the brink of viability, particularly smaller practices that are facing a difficult road to recovery.”

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

Physician practices nationwide lost 32% of their revenue, on average, from February to the summer, according to a new American Medical Association survey of 3,500 physicians, conducted from mid-July to August. That period coincided with the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

A third of practices reported a revenue drop of 25%-49%; 15% said their volume had fallen by 50%-74%, and 4% saw a decrease of 75% or more.

Because of the pandemic, 81% of physicians were providing fewer in-person visits than in February. In-person visits dropped by 50% or more for more than one-third of physicians. The average number of in-person visits fell from 95 to 57 per week.

Physicians who responded to the survey held an average of six weekly telehealth visits before the pandemic, 29 at the height of the pandemic in the spring, and 16 the week they were surveyed. About 20% of respondents with any telehealth visits had conducted them before the pandemic, 77% at the height of the crisis, and 68% in the survey week.

Among the doctors who weren’t involved in telehealth visits before the pandemic, only 23% conducted them at the pandemic’s peak; 12% conducted them in the survey week.

Despite the telehealth increase, almost 70% of physicians were providing fewer total visits, including in-person and virtual encounters, than before the pandemic, the survey showed. About 21% saw a decrease of 25%-49%; 11%, a drop of 50%-74%; and 10%, a falloff of at least 75%. On average, total visits fell from 101 to 72 per week.
 

Other surveys more upbeat

A larger survey by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the technology company Phreesia found that total outpatient visits in early October had rebounded to the level of March 1. This was a major turnaround from late March, when visits had plunged by nearly 60%.

According to the Harvard/Commonwealth Fund’s ongoing survey, visits started recovering in late June, although they were still off by 10%. They began rising further around Labor Day. The AMA researchers began conducting their survey in mid-June. The summertime surge in COVID-19 likely accounted for their finding that practice revenues were off by a third from the February baseline.

If so, the return to normalcy early this month may not represent the current situation as the virus sweeps across the country for a third time. In any case, even if patient visits and revenues have recovered more than the AMA data indicate, most practices will not have recovered from their losses earlier in the year.

A third survey more closely mirrors the AMA results. At the end of June, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association, revenues for the association’s members were 76% of what they had been in June 2019, and patient volume was 78% of that in the previous year.
 

Practice expenses rise

The AMA survey also found that, since February, practice spending on personal protective equipment (PPE) had increased by 57% or more, on average. About 64% of practice owners said their PPE expenditures were up from what they had been before the pandemic. For nearly 40% of practice owners, this expense had increased by 50% or more.

About 36% of the respondents said that acquiring PPE was very or extremely difficult. This was an especially big challenge for smaller practices, which do not have the purchasing power to compete with big health care systems for masks, gowns, and gloves, the AMA noted.

About 41% of doctors in practices with one to five physicians said they had difficulty getting PPE, compared with 30% of those in practices of 50 or more doctors. Only 25% of respondents in practices owned by hospitals and health systems said this was a problem.

Acquiring sufficient PPE is just one factor in the increase in practice expenses attributable to COVID-19. Still, it is indicative of the financial woes affecting physicians during the pandemic.

Nearly all respondents agreed that federal financial relief early in the pandemic was helpful and was appreciated. Among these programs was the CARES Act, which authorized the Provider Relief Fund, which accepted applications through Aug.28; the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payment Program, which was suspended in April; and the SBA Paycheck Protection Program, which ended on Aug. 8.

To date, Congress had not approved the renewal of any these programs.

“Physician practices continue to be under significant financial stress due to reductions in patient volume and revenue, in addition to higher expenses for supplies that are scarce for some physicians,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in a news release on the survey’s findings. “More economic relief is needed now from Congress as some medical practices contemplate the brink of viability, particularly smaller practices that are facing a difficult road to recovery.”

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

Physician practices nationwide lost 32% of their revenue, on average, from February to the summer, according to a new American Medical Association survey of 3,500 physicians, conducted from mid-July to August. That period coincided with the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

A third of practices reported a revenue drop of 25%-49%; 15% said their volume had fallen by 50%-74%, and 4% saw a decrease of 75% or more.

Because of the pandemic, 81% of physicians were providing fewer in-person visits than in February. In-person visits dropped by 50% or more for more than one-third of physicians. The average number of in-person visits fell from 95 to 57 per week.

Physicians who responded to the survey held an average of six weekly telehealth visits before the pandemic, 29 at the height of the pandemic in the spring, and 16 the week they were surveyed. About 20% of respondents with any telehealth visits had conducted them before the pandemic, 77% at the height of the crisis, and 68% in the survey week.

Among the doctors who weren’t involved in telehealth visits before the pandemic, only 23% conducted them at the pandemic’s peak; 12% conducted them in the survey week.

Despite the telehealth increase, almost 70% of physicians were providing fewer total visits, including in-person and virtual encounters, than before the pandemic, the survey showed. About 21% saw a decrease of 25%-49%; 11%, a drop of 50%-74%; and 10%, a falloff of at least 75%. On average, total visits fell from 101 to 72 per week.
 

Other surveys more upbeat

A larger survey by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the technology company Phreesia found that total outpatient visits in early October had rebounded to the level of March 1. This was a major turnaround from late March, when visits had plunged by nearly 60%.

According to the Harvard/Commonwealth Fund’s ongoing survey, visits started recovering in late June, although they were still off by 10%. They began rising further around Labor Day. The AMA researchers began conducting their survey in mid-June. The summertime surge in COVID-19 likely accounted for their finding that practice revenues were off by a third from the February baseline.

If so, the return to normalcy early this month may not represent the current situation as the virus sweeps across the country for a third time. In any case, even if patient visits and revenues have recovered more than the AMA data indicate, most practices will not have recovered from their losses earlier in the year.

A third survey more closely mirrors the AMA results. At the end of June, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association, revenues for the association’s members were 76% of what they had been in June 2019, and patient volume was 78% of that in the previous year.
 

Practice expenses rise

The AMA survey also found that, since February, practice spending on personal protective equipment (PPE) had increased by 57% or more, on average. About 64% of practice owners said their PPE expenditures were up from what they had been before the pandemic. For nearly 40% of practice owners, this expense had increased by 50% or more.

About 36% of the respondents said that acquiring PPE was very or extremely difficult. This was an especially big challenge for smaller practices, which do not have the purchasing power to compete with big health care systems for masks, gowns, and gloves, the AMA noted.

About 41% of doctors in practices with one to five physicians said they had difficulty getting PPE, compared with 30% of those in practices of 50 or more doctors. Only 25% of respondents in practices owned by hospitals and health systems said this was a problem.

Acquiring sufficient PPE is just one factor in the increase in practice expenses attributable to COVID-19. Still, it is indicative of the financial woes affecting physicians during the pandemic.

Nearly all respondents agreed that federal financial relief early in the pandemic was helpful and was appreciated. Among these programs was the CARES Act, which authorized the Provider Relief Fund, which accepted applications through Aug.28; the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payment Program, which was suspended in April; and the SBA Paycheck Protection Program, which ended on Aug. 8.

To date, Congress had not approved the renewal of any these programs.

“Physician practices continue to be under significant financial stress due to reductions in patient volume and revenue, in addition to higher expenses for supplies that are scarce for some physicians,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in a news release on the survey’s findings. “More economic relief is needed now from Congress as some medical practices contemplate the brink of viability, particularly smaller practices that are facing a difficult road to recovery.”

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

The Department of Health & Human Services on Oct. 29 extended the deadline for health care groups to provide patients with immediate electronic access to their doctors’ clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, and will now go into effect April 5.

The announcement comes just 4 days before the previously established Nov. 2 deadline and gives the pandemic as the reason for the delay.

“We are hearing that, while there is strong support for advancing patient access … stakeholders also must manage the needs being experienced during the current pandemic,” Don Rucker, MD, national coordinator for health information technology at HHS, said in a press statement.

“To be clear, the Office of the National Coordinator is not removing the requirements advancing patient access to their health information,” he added.
 

‘What you make of it’

Scott MacDonald, MD, electronic health record medical director at the University of California, Davis, said his organization is proceeding anyway. “UC Davis is going to start releasing notes and test results on Nov. 12,” he said in an interview.

Other organizations and practices now have more time, he said, but the law stays the same. “There’s no change to the what or why – only to the when,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., will take advantage of the extra time, Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals, said in an interview.

“Given the super-short time frame we had to work under as this emerged out from dealing with COVID, we feel that we have not addressed all the potential legal-edge cases such as dealing with adolescent medicine and child abuse,” he said.

On Oct. 21, this news organization reported on the then-imminent start of the new law, which irked many readers. They cited, among other things, the likelihood of patient confusion with fast patient access to all clinical notes.

“To me, the biggest issue is that we speak a foreign language that most outside of medicine don’t speak. Our job is to explain it to the patient at a level they can understand. What will 100% happen now is that a patient will not be able to reconcile what is in the note to what they’ve been told,” Andrew White, MD, wrote in a reader comment.

But benefits of open notes outweigh the risks, say proponents, who claim that doctor-patient communication and trust actually improve with information access and that research indicates other benefits such as improved medication adherence.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot open-notes program for 3 years.

“I actually end all of my appointments with: ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she said in an interview.

Dr. Millen feared open notes initially but, within the first 3 months of usage, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Department of Health & Human Services on Oct. 29 extended the deadline for health care groups to provide patients with immediate electronic access to their doctors’ clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, and will now go into effect April 5.

The announcement comes just 4 days before the previously established Nov. 2 deadline and gives the pandemic as the reason for the delay.

“We are hearing that, while there is strong support for advancing patient access … stakeholders also must manage the needs being experienced during the current pandemic,” Don Rucker, MD, national coordinator for health information technology at HHS, said in a press statement.

“To be clear, the Office of the National Coordinator is not removing the requirements advancing patient access to their health information,” he added.
 

‘What you make of it’

Scott MacDonald, MD, electronic health record medical director at the University of California, Davis, said his organization is proceeding anyway. “UC Davis is going to start releasing notes and test results on Nov. 12,” he said in an interview.

Other organizations and practices now have more time, he said, but the law stays the same. “There’s no change to the what or why – only to the when,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., will take advantage of the extra time, Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals, said in an interview.

“Given the super-short time frame we had to work under as this emerged out from dealing with COVID, we feel that we have not addressed all the potential legal-edge cases such as dealing with adolescent medicine and child abuse,” he said.

On Oct. 21, this news organization reported on the then-imminent start of the new law, which irked many readers. They cited, among other things, the likelihood of patient confusion with fast patient access to all clinical notes.

“To me, the biggest issue is that we speak a foreign language that most outside of medicine don’t speak. Our job is to explain it to the patient at a level they can understand. What will 100% happen now is that a patient will not be able to reconcile what is in the note to what they’ve been told,” Andrew White, MD, wrote in a reader comment.

But benefits of open notes outweigh the risks, say proponents, who claim that doctor-patient communication and trust actually improve with information access and that research indicates other benefits such as improved medication adherence.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot open-notes program for 3 years.

“I actually end all of my appointments with: ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she said in an interview.

Dr. Millen feared open notes initially but, within the first 3 months of usage, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Department of Health & Human Services on Oct. 29 extended the deadline for health care groups to provide patients with immediate electronic access to their doctors’ clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, and will now go into effect April 5.

The announcement comes just 4 days before the previously established Nov. 2 deadline and gives the pandemic as the reason for the delay.

“We are hearing that, while there is strong support for advancing patient access … stakeholders also must manage the needs being experienced during the current pandemic,” Don Rucker, MD, national coordinator for health information technology at HHS, said in a press statement.

“To be clear, the Office of the National Coordinator is not removing the requirements advancing patient access to their health information,” he added.
 

‘What you make of it’

Scott MacDonald, MD, electronic health record medical director at the University of California, Davis, said his organization is proceeding anyway. “UC Davis is going to start releasing notes and test results on Nov. 12,” he said in an interview.

Other organizations and practices now have more time, he said, but the law stays the same. “There’s no change to the what or why – only to the when,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., will take advantage of the extra time, Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals, said in an interview.

“Given the super-short time frame we had to work under as this emerged out from dealing with COVID, we feel that we have not addressed all the potential legal-edge cases such as dealing with adolescent medicine and child abuse,” he said.

On Oct. 21, this news organization reported on the then-imminent start of the new law, which irked many readers. They cited, among other things, the likelihood of patient confusion with fast patient access to all clinical notes.

“To me, the biggest issue is that we speak a foreign language that most outside of medicine don’t speak. Our job is to explain it to the patient at a level they can understand. What will 100% happen now is that a patient will not be able to reconcile what is in the note to what they’ve been told,” Andrew White, MD, wrote in a reader comment.

But benefits of open notes outweigh the risks, say proponents, who claim that doctor-patient communication and trust actually improve with information access and that research indicates other benefits such as improved medication adherence.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot open-notes program for 3 years.

“I actually end all of my appointments with: ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she said in an interview.

Dr. Millen feared open notes initially but, within the first 3 months of usage, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A class of drugs long used to treat HIV and hepatitis B viral infections appears to prevent the development of diabetes in a substantial proportion of patients who take these agents, an analysis of multiple databases has shown.

“Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs], drugs approved to treat HIV-1 and hepatitis B infections, also block inflammasome activation,” Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues wrote in Nature Communications.

“[We showed that] the adjusted risk of incident diabetes is 33% lower in patients with NRTI exposure. ... These data suggest the possibility of repurposing an approved class of drugs for prevention of diabetes,” they wrote.

The researchers made a small chemical modification to NRTIs that led to their developing a new class of drugs, which they have termed “kamuvudines.” Kamuvudines are nontoxic derivatives of NRTIs, Dr. Ambati said in an interview.

“People take NRTIs because they need to live with HIV, but giving them to the general population is not a great idea because of the toxicities associated with long-term NRTI use. So our focus is not to go forward specifically with NRTIs but rather with these new molecules that are far less toxic, and that is how we envision a clinical trial going forward,” Dr. Ambati noted.
 

Researchers screened five databases of >100,000 patients

Dr. Ambati and colleagues analyzed information from five databases in which patients who had been exposed to an NRTI but who had not previously been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were assessed for the subsequent development of diabetes over varying time intervals. In one, the Veterans Health Administration database – from the largest integrated health care system in the United States – the analysis spanned a period of 17 years.

Of 79,744 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV or hepatitis B in the Veterans Health Administration database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was reduced by 34% among NRTI users, compared with nonusers after adjusting for potential confounders (P < .0001).

The reduction in diabetes risk was similar among HIV-positive and hepatitis B–positive patients.

These results were reaffirmed by further analyses of four other databases, the investigators reported. One of these, the employer-based health insurance Truven database, had data on 23,634 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B. After adjusting for potential confounders, NRTI users had a 39% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with nonusers (P < .0001).

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was somewhat lower among NRTI users in the Pearl Diver database, which includes predominantly private health insurance claims. Of 16,045 patients diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B included in this database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 26% lower among NRTI users, compared with nonusers (P = .004).

A similar magnitude of risk reduction was seen in the analysis of the Clinformatics dataset. Among 6,341 users of NRTIs, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 27% lower than it was for nonusers (P = .009).

The least reduction in diabetes risk was in the Medicare database, in which only 3,097 patients had been diagnosed with either HIV or hepatitis B. Among these patients, the risk for diabetes was 17% lower among NRTI users than it was for nonusers (P = .137).
 

One-third reduction across multiple databases enhances confidence

“Collectively, among 128,861 patients with HIV-1 or hepatitis B, users of NRTIs had a 33% reduced hazard of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Ambati and colleagues emphasize.

“The fact that the protective effect against the development of diabetes was replicated in multiple databases in studies from multiple institutions enhances confidence in the results,” Dr. Ambati noted in a statement from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ambati and colleagues also showed that the NRTI lamivudine restores insulin sensitivity in human cells from type 2 diabetes patients.

That drug prevented induction of insulin resistance in human cells from people who did not have diabetes. It also prevented inflammasome activation in mice fed a high-fat diet.

“These investigations of human cell, mouse and population database systems collectively suggest a potential beneficial effect of NRTIs in forestalling diabetes onset,” they stressed.
 

Trial assessing kamuvudines slated to begin next year

In the interview, Dr. Ambati explained that inflammasomes are protein complexes that form a large superstructure within the cell. “When activated, they lead to the production of some very powerful inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 beta and IL-18.”

Although there are many different types of inflammasomes, the one implicated in type 2 diabetes, as well as many other chronic diseases, including macular degeneration, is the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Activation of this molecule promotes insulin resistance, a key driver of type 2 diabetes, he explained.

Importantly, previous research showed that the way the NRTIs block this inflammasome has nothing to do with their anti-HIV activity.

After making a small chemical modification in the NRTIs, Dr. Ambati and colleagues were able to show that the resulting agents, which they have dubbed “kamuvudines,” are able to block inflammasome activation independently of their antiviral effects.

They hope that this modification will reduce the toxicities associated with the agents. This would be necessary if kamuvudines were to be more widely used in a noninfected, healthier population, Ambati stressed.

Dr. Ambati and his colleague, Paul Ashton, PhD, cofounder of Inflammasone Therapeutics, plan a clinical trial with one of these kamuvudines in macular degeneration, which they hope will begin early next year.

“We are trying to pick a disease where we can show efficacy fairly quickly in a small number of people,” Dr. Ashton explained in an interview. “We’re very enthusiastic about this as it looks really, really promising.”

Dr. Ambati and Dr. Ashton cofounded Inflammasone Therapeutics, located in Boston. Dr. Ashton is the CEO of the company.

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

A class of drugs long used to treat HIV and hepatitis B viral infections appears to prevent the development of diabetes in a substantial proportion of patients who take these agents, an analysis of multiple databases has shown.

“Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs], drugs approved to treat HIV-1 and hepatitis B infections, also block inflammasome activation,” Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues wrote in Nature Communications.

“[We showed that] the adjusted risk of incident diabetes is 33% lower in patients with NRTI exposure. ... These data suggest the possibility of repurposing an approved class of drugs for prevention of diabetes,” they wrote.

The researchers made a small chemical modification to NRTIs that led to their developing a new class of drugs, which they have termed “kamuvudines.” Kamuvudines are nontoxic derivatives of NRTIs, Dr. Ambati said in an interview.

“People take NRTIs because they need to live with HIV, but giving them to the general population is not a great idea because of the toxicities associated with long-term NRTI use. So our focus is not to go forward specifically with NRTIs but rather with these new molecules that are far less toxic, and that is how we envision a clinical trial going forward,” Dr. Ambati noted.
 

Researchers screened five databases of >100,000 patients

Dr. Ambati and colleagues analyzed information from five databases in which patients who had been exposed to an NRTI but who had not previously been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were assessed for the subsequent development of diabetes over varying time intervals. In one, the Veterans Health Administration database – from the largest integrated health care system in the United States – the analysis spanned a period of 17 years.

Of 79,744 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV or hepatitis B in the Veterans Health Administration database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was reduced by 34% among NRTI users, compared with nonusers after adjusting for potential confounders (P < .0001).

The reduction in diabetes risk was similar among HIV-positive and hepatitis B–positive patients.

These results were reaffirmed by further analyses of four other databases, the investigators reported. One of these, the employer-based health insurance Truven database, had data on 23,634 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B. After adjusting for potential confounders, NRTI users had a 39% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with nonusers (P < .0001).

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was somewhat lower among NRTI users in the Pearl Diver database, which includes predominantly private health insurance claims. Of 16,045 patients diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B included in this database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 26% lower among NRTI users, compared with nonusers (P = .004).

A similar magnitude of risk reduction was seen in the analysis of the Clinformatics dataset. Among 6,341 users of NRTIs, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 27% lower than it was for nonusers (P = .009).

The least reduction in diabetes risk was in the Medicare database, in which only 3,097 patients had been diagnosed with either HIV or hepatitis B. Among these patients, the risk for diabetes was 17% lower among NRTI users than it was for nonusers (P = .137).
 

One-third reduction across multiple databases enhances confidence

“Collectively, among 128,861 patients with HIV-1 or hepatitis B, users of NRTIs had a 33% reduced hazard of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Ambati and colleagues emphasize.

“The fact that the protective effect against the development of diabetes was replicated in multiple databases in studies from multiple institutions enhances confidence in the results,” Dr. Ambati noted in a statement from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ambati and colleagues also showed that the NRTI lamivudine restores insulin sensitivity in human cells from type 2 diabetes patients.

That drug prevented induction of insulin resistance in human cells from people who did not have diabetes. It also prevented inflammasome activation in mice fed a high-fat diet.

“These investigations of human cell, mouse and population database systems collectively suggest a potential beneficial effect of NRTIs in forestalling diabetes onset,” they stressed.
 

Trial assessing kamuvudines slated to begin next year

In the interview, Dr. Ambati explained that inflammasomes are protein complexes that form a large superstructure within the cell. “When activated, they lead to the production of some very powerful inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 beta and IL-18.”

Although there are many different types of inflammasomes, the one implicated in type 2 diabetes, as well as many other chronic diseases, including macular degeneration, is the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Activation of this molecule promotes insulin resistance, a key driver of type 2 diabetes, he explained.

Importantly, previous research showed that the way the NRTIs block this inflammasome has nothing to do with their anti-HIV activity.

After making a small chemical modification in the NRTIs, Dr. Ambati and colleagues were able to show that the resulting agents, which they have dubbed “kamuvudines,” are able to block inflammasome activation independently of their antiviral effects.

They hope that this modification will reduce the toxicities associated with the agents. This would be necessary if kamuvudines were to be more widely used in a noninfected, healthier population, Ambati stressed.

Dr. Ambati and his colleague, Paul Ashton, PhD, cofounder of Inflammasone Therapeutics, plan a clinical trial with one of these kamuvudines in macular degeneration, which they hope will begin early next year.

“We are trying to pick a disease where we can show efficacy fairly quickly in a small number of people,” Dr. Ashton explained in an interview. “We’re very enthusiastic about this as it looks really, really promising.”

Dr. Ambati and Dr. Ashton cofounded Inflammasone Therapeutics, located in Boston. Dr. Ashton is the CEO of the company.

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

A class of drugs long used to treat HIV and hepatitis B viral infections appears to prevent the development of diabetes in a substantial proportion of patients who take these agents, an analysis of multiple databases has shown.

“Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs], drugs approved to treat HIV-1 and hepatitis B infections, also block inflammasome activation,” Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues wrote in Nature Communications.

“[We showed that] the adjusted risk of incident diabetes is 33% lower in patients with NRTI exposure. ... These data suggest the possibility of repurposing an approved class of drugs for prevention of diabetes,” they wrote.

The researchers made a small chemical modification to NRTIs that led to their developing a new class of drugs, which they have termed “kamuvudines.” Kamuvudines are nontoxic derivatives of NRTIs, Dr. Ambati said in an interview.

“People take NRTIs because they need to live with HIV, but giving them to the general population is not a great idea because of the toxicities associated with long-term NRTI use. So our focus is not to go forward specifically with NRTIs but rather with these new molecules that are far less toxic, and that is how we envision a clinical trial going forward,” Dr. Ambati noted.
 

Researchers screened five databases of >100,000 patients

Dr. Ambati and colleagues analyzed information from five databases in which patients who had been exposed to an NRTI but who had not previously been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were assessed for the subsequent development of diabetes over varying time intervals. In one, the Veterans Health Administration database – from the largest integrated health care system in the United States – the analysis spanned a period of 17 years.

Of 79,744 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HIV or hepatitis B in the Veterans Health Administration database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was reduced by 34% among NRTI users, compared with nonusers after adjusting for potential confounders (P < .0001).

The reduction in diabetes risk was similar among HIV-positive and hepatitis B–positive patients.

These results were reaffirmed by further analyses of four other databases, the investigators reported. One of these, the employer-based health insurance Truven database, had data on 23,634 patients who had been diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B. After adjusting for potential confounders, NRTI users had a 39% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with nonusers (P < .0001).

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was somewhat lower among NRTI users in the Pearl Diver database, which includes predominantly private health insurance claims. Of 16,045 patients diagnosed with HIV or hepatitis B included in this database, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 26% lower among NRTI users, compared with nonusers (P = .004).

A similar magnitude of risk reduction was seen in the analysis of the Clinformatics dataset. Among 6,341 users of NRTIs, the risk for type 2 diabetes was 27% lower than it was for nonusers (P = .009).

The least reduction in diabetes risk was in the Medicare database, in which only 3,097 patients had been diagnosed with either HIV or hepatitis B. Among these patients, the risk for diabetes was 17% lower among NRTI users than it was for nonusers (P = .137).
 

One-third reduction across multiple databases enhances confidence

“Collectively, among 128,861 patients with HIV-1 or hepatitis B, users of NRTIs had a 33% reduced hazard of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Ambati and colleagues emphasize.

“The fact that the protective effect against the development of diabetes was replicated in multiple databases in studies from multiple institutions enhances confidence in the results,” Dr. Ambati noted in a statement from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Ambati and colleagues also showed that the NRTI lamivudine restores insulin sensitivity in human cells from type 2 diabetes patients.

That drug prevented induction of insulin resistance in human cells from people who did not have diabetes. It also prevented inflammasome activation in mice fed a high-fat diet.

“These investigations of human cell, mouse and population database systems collectively suggest a potential beneficial effect of NRTIs in forestalling diabetes onset,” they stressed.
 

Trial assessing kamuvudines slated to begin next year

In the interview, Dr. Ambati explained that inflammasomes are protein complexes that form a large superstructure within the cell. “When activated, they lead to the production of some very powerful inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-1 beta and IL-18.”

Although there are many different types of inflammasomes, the one implicated in type 2 diabetes, as well as many other chronic diseases, including macular degeneration, is the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Activation of this molecule promotes insulin resistance, a key driver of type 2 diabetes, he explained.

Importantly, previous research showed that the way the NRTIs block this inflammasome has nothing to do with their anti-HIV activity.

After making a small chemical modification in the NRTIs, Dr. Ambati and colleagues were able to show that the resulting agents, which they have dubbed “kamuvudines,” are able to block inflammasome activation independently of their antiviral effects.

They hope that this modification will reduce the toxicities associated with the agents. This would be necessary if kamuvudines were to be more widely used in a noninfected, healthier population, Ambati stressed.

Dr. Ambati and his colleague, Paul Ashton, PhD, cofounder of Inflammasone Therapeutics, plan a clinical trial with one of these kamuvudines in macular degeneration, which they hope will begin early next year.

“We are trying to pick a disease where we can show efficacy fairly quickly in a small number of people,” Dr. Ashton explained in an interview. “We’re very enthusiastic about this as it looks really, really promising.”

Dr. Ambati and Dr. Ashton cofounded Inflammasone Therapeutics, located in Boston. Dr. Ashton is the CEO of the company.

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

A new online tool aims to help patients with insulin-treated diabetes and their health care providers to identify the best diabetes technology based on individual needs and preferences.

The “Device Finder” tool is a new feature of the DiabetesWise website, www.diabeteswise.org, which is funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust with no industry contributions. It is intended for use by patients with either type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and by endocrinologists and primary care clinicians in their discussions with patients.

The main DiabetesWise site was launched in June 2019 by a team led by Stanford (Calif.) University psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD; this team included endocrinologists, psychologists, diabetes care and education specialists, nurses, and patients. The information provided in it was based on work from the past several years in examining human variables that influence diabetes technology uptake, Dr. Hood said in an interview.

“We realized there wasn’t really a great resource for people to actually compare different devices and understand what might fit their lifestyle and priorities. You had to go to a device manufacturer to get that information, and ... that’s probably a little bit biased,” said Dr. Hood, who is professor of pediatrics and psychiatry & behavioral sciences at Stanford.

The site offers a quick “Check Up” that asks patients about what devices they’re currently using, how they feel they’re handling their diabetes management, and about their priorities regarding devices. The new “Device Finder” tool provides information about different combinations of insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), injections, and fingerstick glucose meters. The site also features resources for patients on speaking with their doctors, costs and health insurance, coping with COVID-19, and “wisdom” with patient narratives. Patients can download reports to share with their clinicians.

Asked to comment, diabetes technology expert David Ahn, MD, program director of the Allen Diabetes Center, Hoag Health, Newport Beach, Calif., said, “I love that DiabetesWise.org offers patients a way to compare and contrast different products all in one place that is not directly influenced or funded by a specific manufacturer or industry in general. I especially appreciate the patient stories and how they each arrived at their current devices.”

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “when talking to my patients, I feel like having a personal discussion can lead to a better sense of their desires and preferences than a website that is just following an algorithm. ... The challenge with any resource like this is fully appreciating the nuances of each individual and device since choosing a device or combination of devices can be more of an art than a science.”

Nonetheless, he said that the site may be “a good starting place to learn key concepts and product details” for newly diagnosed patients and nonspecialist clinicians.

Indeed, Dr. Hood said, “It’s not perfect. We will revise it as we get more data.” The team is currently following about 500 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, most of them not in specialty care and not initially using advanced devices (pumps/CGMs) to see how they’re engaging with the site and whether they adopt new technologies. “We were pretty encouraged that, in the first month, people were reaching out to their providers to get a prescription. I think we’re generating the awareness that we thought we would.”

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact. “We queried people, [and] about half had lost some portion of employment and with that was tied their access to benefits and health insurance. We saw a dip in how much people could actually access. We’ll report that when we have all the data.”

Pending funding, Dr. Hood said the team also hopes to create a clinician-facing versions of the site. “We won’t forget about endocrinologists, but really we’re interested in making it a tool that primary care clinicians and even pharmacists can use to help with the engagement and uptake of diabetes devices, because the rate of use of these diabetes devices in adults with type 1 who aren’t in specialty care is pretty low. So we’re trying to reach the groups that will have a bigger impact.”

In addition to his work on DiabetesWise, Dr. Hood is a consultant for Cecelia Health. Dr. Ahn is a consultant for Senseonics and Eli Lilly and on the speaker’s bureau for Lilly.

A new online tool aims to help patients with insulin-treated diabetes and their health care providers to identify the best diabetes technology based on individual needs and preferences.

The “Device Finder” tool is a new feature of the DiabetesWise website, www.diabeteswise.org, which is funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust with no industry contributions. It is intended for use by patients with either type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and by endocrinologists and primary care clinicians in their discussions with patients.

The main DiabetesWise site was launched in June 2019 by a team led by Stanford (Calif.) University psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD; this team included endocrinologists, psychologists, diabetes care and education specialists, nurses, and patients. The information provided in it was based on work from the past several years in examining human variables that influence diabetes technology uptake, Dr. Hood said in an interview.

“We realized there wasn’t really a great resource for people to actually compare different devices and understand what might fit their lifestyle and priorities. You had to go to a device manufacturer to get that information, and ... that’s probably a little bit biased,” said Dr. Hood, who is professor of pediatrics and psychiatry & behavioral sciences at Stanford.

The site offers a quick “Check Up” that asks patients about what devices they’re currently using, how they feel they’re handling their diabetes management, and about their priorities regarding devices. The new “Device Finder” tool provides information about different combinations of insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), injections, and fingerstick glucose meters. The site also features resources for patients on speaking with their doctors, costs and health insurance, coping with COVID-19, and “wisdom” with patient narratives. Patients can download reports to share with their clinicians.

Asked to comment, diabetes technology expert David Ahn, MD, program director of the Allen Diabetes Center, Hoag Health, Newport Beach, Calif., said, “I love that DiabetesWise.org offers patients a way to compare and contrast different products all in one place that is not directly influenced or funded by a specific manufacturer or industry in general. I especially appreciate the patient stories and how they each arrived at their current devices.”

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “when talking to my patients, I feel like having a personal discussion can lead to a better sense of their desires and preferences than a website that is just following an algorithm. ... The challenge with any resource like this is fully appreciating the nuances of each individual and device since choosing a device or combination of devices can be more of an art than a science.”

Nonetheless, he said that the site may be “a good starting place to learn key concepts and product details” for newly diagnosed patients and nonspecialist clinicians.

Indeed, Dr. Hood said, “It’s not perfect. We will revise it as we get more data.” The team is currently following about 500 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, most of them not in specialty care and not initially using advanced devices (pumps/CGMs) to see how they’re engaging with the site and whether they adopt new technologies. “We were pretty encouraged that, in the first month, people were reaching out to their providers to get a prescription. I think we’re generating the awareness that we thought we would.”

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact. “We queried people, [and] about half had lost some portion of employment and with that was tied their access to benefits and health insurance. We saw a dip in how much people could actually access. We’ll report that when we have all the data.”

Pending funding, Dr. Hood said the team also hopes to create a clinician-facing versions of the site. “We won’t forget about endocrinologists, but really we’re interested in making it a tool that primary care clinicians and even pharmacists can use to help with the engagement and uptake of diabetes devices, because the rate of use of these diabetes devices in adults with type 1 who aren’t in specialty care is pretty low. So we’re trying to reach the groups that will have a bigger impact.”

In addition to his work on DiabetesWise, Dr. Hood is a consultant for Cecelia Health. Dr. Ahn is a consultant for Senseonics and Eli Lilly and on the speaker’s bureau for Lilly.

A new online tool aims to help patients with insulin-treated diabetes and their health care providers to identify the best diabetes technology based on individual needs and preferences.

The “Device Finder” tool is a new feature of the DiabetesWise website, www.diabeteswise.org, which is funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust with no industry contributions. It is intended for use by patients with either type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and by endocrinologists and primary care clinicians in their discussions with patients.

The main DiabetesWise site was launched in June 2019 by a team led by Stanford (Calif.) University psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD; this team included endocrinologists, psychologists, diabetes care and education specialists, nurses, and patients. The information provided in it was based on work from the past several years in examining human variables that influence diabetes technology uptake, Dr. Hood said in an interview.

“We realized there wasn’t really a great resource for people to actually compare different devices and understand what might fit their lifestyle and priorities. You had to go to a device manufacturer to get that information, and ... that’s probably a little bit biased,” said Dr. Hood, who is professor of pediatrics and psychiatry & behavioral sciences at Stanford.

The site offers a quick “Check Up” that asks patients about what devices they’re currently using, how they feel they’re handling their diabetes management, and about their priorities regarding devices. The new “Device Finder” tool provides information about different combinations of insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), injections, and fingerstick glucose meters. The site also features resources for patients on speaking with their doctors, costs and health insurance, coping with COVID-19, and “wisdom” with patient narratives. Patients can download reports to share with their clinicians.

Asked to comment, diabetes technology expert David Ahn, MD, program director of the Allen Diabetes Center, Hoag Health, Newport Beach, Calif., said, “I love that DiabetesWise.org offers patients a way to compare and contrast different products all in one place that is not directly influenced or funded by a specific manufacturer or industry in general. I especially appreciate the patient stories and how they each arrived at their current devices.”

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “when talking to my patients, I feel like having a personal discussion can lead to a better sense of their desires and preferences than a website that is just following an algorithm. ... The challenge with any resource like this is fully appreciating the nuances of each individual and device since choosing a device or combination of devices can be more of an art than a science.”

Nonetheless, he said that the site may be “a good starting place to learn key concepts and product details” for newly diagnosed patients and nonspecialist clinicians.

Indeed, Dr. Hood said, “It’s not perfect. We will revise it as we get more data.” The team is currently following about 500 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, most of them not in specialty care and not initially using advanced devices (pumps/CGMs) to see how they’re engaging with the site and whether they adopt new technologies. “We were pretty encouraged that, in the first month, people were reaching out to their providers to get a prescription. I think we’re generating the awareness that we thought we would.”

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact. “We queried people, [and] about half had lost some portion of employment and with that was tied their access to benefits and health insurance. We saw a dip in how much people could actually access. We’ll report that when we have all the data.”

Pending funding, Dr. Hood said the team also hopes to create a clinician-facing versions of the site. “We won’t forget about endocrinologists, but really we’re interested in making it a tool that primary care clinicians and even pharmacists can use to help with the engagement and uptake of diabetes devices, because the rate of use of these diabetes devices in adults with type 1 who aren’t in specialty care is pretty low. So we’re trying to reach the groups that will have a bigger impact.”

In addition to his work on DiabetesWise, Dr. Hood is a consultant for Cecelia Health. Dr. Ahn is a consultant for Senseonics and Eli Lilly and on the speaker’s bureau for Lilly.

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cumulative 511,000 lives could be lost from COVID-19 in the United States by the end of February 2021, a new prediction study reveals.

However, if universal mask wearing is adopted — defined as 95% of Americans complying with the protective measure — along with social distancing mandates as warranted, nearly 130,000 of those lives could be saved.

And if even 85% of Americans comply, an additional 95,800 lives would be spared before March of next year, researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report.

The study was published online October 23 in Nature Medicine.

“The study is sound and makes the case for mandatory mask policies,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who frequently provides commentary for Medscape.

Without mandatory mask requirements, he added, “we will see a pandemic slaughter and an overwhelmed healthcare system and workforce.”

The IHME team evaluated COVID-19 data for cases and related deaths between February 1 and September 21. Based on this data, they predicted the likely future of SARS-CoV-2 infections on a state level from September 22, 2020, to February 2021.

An Optimistic Projection

Lead author Robert C. Reiner Jr and colleagues looked at five scenarios. For example, they calculated likely deaths associated with COVID-19 if adoption of mask and social distancing recommendations were nearly universal. They note that Singapore achieved a 95% compliance rate with masks and used this as their “best-case scenario” model.

An estimated 129,574 (range, 85,284–170,867) additional lives could be saved if 95% of Americans wore masks in public, their research reveals. This optimistic scenario includes a “plausible reference” in which any US state reaching 8 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million residents would enact 6 weeks of social distancing mandates (SDMs).

Achieving this level of mask compliance in the United States “could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states,” the researchers note.

In contrast, the proportion of Americans wearing masks in public as of September 22 was 49%, according to IHME data.
 

Universal mask use unlikely

“I’m not a modeling expert, but it is an interesting, and as far as I can judge, well-conducted study which looks, state by state, at what might happen in various scenarios around masking policies going forward — and in particular the effect that mandated masking might have,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, told Medscape Medical News.  

“However, the scenario is a thought experiment. Near-universal mask use is not going to happen in the USA, nor indeed in any individual state, right now, given how emotive the issue has become,” added Greenhalgh, professor in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University, UK. She was not affiliated with the study.

“Hence, whilst I am broadly supportive of the science,” she said, “I’m not confident that this paper will be able to change policy.”
 

Other ‘What if?’ scenarios

The authors also predicted the mortality implications associated with lower adherence to masks, the presence or absence of SDMs, and what could happen if mandates continue to ease at their current rate.

For example, they considered a scenario with less-than-universal mask use in public, 85%, along with SDMs being reinstated based on the mortality rate threshold. In this instance, they found an additional 95,814 (range, 60,731–133,077) lives could be spared by February 28.

Another calculation looked at outcomes if 95% of Americans wore masks going forward without states instituting SDMs at any point. In this case, the researchers predict that 490,437 Americans would die from COVID-19 by February 2021.

A fourth analysis revealed what would happen without greater mask use if the mortality threshold triggered 6 weeks of SDMs as warranted. Under this ‘plausible reference’ calculation, a total 511,373 Americans would die from COVID-19 by the end of February.

A fifth scenario predicted potential mortality if states continue easing SDMs at the current pace. “This is an alternative scenario to the more probable situation where states are expected to respond to an impending health crisis by reinstating some SDMs,” the authors note. The predicted number of American deaths appears more dire in this calculation. The investigators predict cumulative total deaths could reach 1,053,206 (range, 759,693–1,452,397) by the end of February 2021.

The death toll would likely vary among states in this scenario. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania would like account for approximately one third of all deaths.

All the modeling scenarios considered other factors including pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita.
 

“I have seen the IHME study and I agree with the broad conclusions,” Richard Stutt, PhD, of the Epidemiology and Modelling Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Medscape Medical News.

“Case numbers are climbing in the US, and without further intervention, there will be a significant number of deaths over the coming months,” he said.

Masks are low cost and widely available, Stutt said. “I am hopeful that even if masks are not widely adopted, we will not see as many deaths as predicted here, as these outbreaks can be significantly reduced by increased social distancing or lockdowns.”

“However this comes at a far higher economic cost than the use of masks, and still requires action,” added Stutt, who authored a study in June that modeled facemasks in combination with “lock-down” measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling study results depend on the assumptions researchers make, and the IHME team rightly tested a number of different assumptions, Greenhalgh said.

“The key conclusion,” she added, “is here: ‘The implementation of SDMs as soon as individual states reach a threshold of 8 daily deaths per million could dramatically ameliorate the effects of the disease; achieving near-universal mask use could delay, or in many states, possibly prevent, this threshold from being reached and has the potential to save the most lives while minimizing damage to the economy.’ “

“This is a useful piece of information and I think is borne out by their data,” added Greenhalgh, lead author of an April study on face masks for the public during the pandemic.

You can visit the IHME website for the most current mortality projections.

Caplan, Greenhalgh, and Stutt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cumulative 511,000 lives could be lost from COVID-19 in the United States by the end of February 2021, a new prediction study reveals.

However, if universal mask wearing is adopted — defined as 95% of Americans complying with the protective measure — along with social distancing mandates as warranted, nearly 130,000 of those lives could be saved.

And if even 85% of Americans comply, an additional 95,800 lives would be spared before March of next year, researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report.

The study was published online October 23 in Nature Medicine.

“The study is sound and makes the case for mandatory mask policies,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who frequently provides commentary for Medscape.

Without mandatory mask requirements, he added, “we will see a pandemic slaughter and an overwhelmed healthcare system and workforce.”

The IHME team evaluated COVID-19 data for cases and related deaths between February 1 and September 21. Based on this data, they predicted the likely future of SARS-CoV-2 infections on a state level from September 22, 2020, to February 2021.

An Optimistic Projection

Lead author Robert C. Reiner Jr and colleagues looked at five scenarios. For example, they calculated likely deaths associated with COVID-19 if adoption of mask and social distancing recommendations were nearly universal. They note that Singapore achieved a 95% compliance rate with masks and used this as their “best-case scenario” model.

An estimated 129,574 (range, 85,284–170,867) additional lives could be saved if 95% of Americans wore masks in public, their research reveals. This optimistic scenario includes a “plausible reference” in which any US state reaching 8 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million residents would enact 6 weeks of social distancing mandates (SDMs).

Achieving this level of mask compliance in the United States “could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states,” the researchers note.

In contrast, the proportion of Americans wearing masks in public as of September 22 was 49%, according to IHME data.
 

Universal mask use unlikely

“I’m not a modeling expert, but it is an interesting, and as far as I can judge, well-conducted study which looks, state by state, at what might happen in various scenarios around masking policies going forward — and in particular the effect that mandated masking might have,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, told Medscape Medical News.  

“However, the scenario is a thought experiment. Near-universal mask use is not going to happen in the USA, nor indeed in any individual state, right now, given how emotive the issue has become,” added Greenhalgh, professor in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University, UK. She was not affiliated with the study.

“Hence, whilst I am broadly supportive of the science,” she said, “I’m not confident that this paper will be able to change policy.”
 

Other ‘What if?’ scenarios

The authors also predicted the mortality implications associated with lower adherence to masks, the presence or absence of SDMs, and what could happen if mandates continue to ease at their current rate.

For example, they considered a scenario with less-than-universal mask use in public, 85%, along with SDMs being reinstated based on the mortality rate threshold. In this instance, they found an additional 95,814 (range, 60,731–133,077) lives could be spared by February 28.

Another calculation looked at outcomes if 95% of Americans wore masks going forward without states instituting SDMs at any point. In this case, the researchers predict that 490,437 Americans would die from COVID-19 by February 2021.

A fourth analysis revealed what would happen without greater mask use if the mortality threshold triggered 6 weeks of SDMs as warranted. Under this ‘plausible reference’ calculation, a total 511,373 Americans would die from COVID-19 by the end of February.

A fifth scenario predicted potential mortality if states continue easing SDMs at the current pace. “This is an alternative scenario to the more probable situation where states are expected to respond to an impending health crisis by reinstating some SDMs,” the authors note. The predicted number of American deaths appears more dire in this calculation. The investigators predict cumulative total deaths could reach 1,053,206 (range, 759,693–1,452,397) by the end of February 2021.

The death toll would likely vary among states in this scenario. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania would like account for approximately one third of all deaths.

All the modeling scenarios considered other factors including pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita.
 

“I have seen the IHME study and I agree with the broad conclusions,” Richard Stutt, PhD, of the Epidemiology and Modelling Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Medscape Medical News.

“Case numbers are climbing in the US, and without further intervention, there will be a significant number of deaths over the coming months,” he said.

Masks are low cost and widely available, Stutt said. “I am hopeful that even if masks are not widely adopted, we will not see as many deaths as predicted here, as these outbreaks can be significantly reduced by increased social distancing or lockdowns.”

“However this comes at a far higher economic cost than the use of masks, and still requires action,” added Stutt, who authored a study in June that modeled facemasks in combination with “lock-down” measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling study results depend on the assumptions researchers make, and the IHME team rightly tested a number of different assumptions, Greenhalgh said.

“The key conclusion,” she added, “is here: ‘The implementation of SDMs as soon as individual states reach a threshold of 8 daily deaths per million could dramatically ameliorate the effects of the disease; achieving near-universal mask use could delay, or in many states, possibly prevent, this threshold from being reached and has the potential to save the most lives while minimizing damage to the economy.’ “

“This is a useful piece of information and I think is borne out by their data,” added Greenhalgh, lead author of an April study on face masks for the public during the pandemic.

You can visit the IHME website for the most current mortality projections.

Caplan, Greenhalgh, and Stutt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cumulative 511,000 lives could be lost from COVID-19 in the United States by the end of February 2021, a new prediction study reveals.

However, if universal mask wearing is adopted — defined as 95% of Americans complying with the protective measure — along with social distancing mandates as warranted, nearly 130,000 of those lives could be saved.

And if even 85% of Americans comply, an additional 95,800 lives would be spared before March of next year, researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report.

The study was published online October 23 in Nature Medicine.

“The study is sound and makes the case for mandatory mask policies,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who frequently provides commentary for Medscape.

Without mandatory mask requirements, he added, “we will see a pandemic slaughter and an overwhelmed healthcare system and workforce.”

The IHME team evaluated COVID-19 data for cases and related deaths between February 1 and September 21. Based on this data, they predicted the likely future of SARS-CoV-2 infections on a state level from September 22, 2020, to February 2021.

An Optimistic Projection

Lead author Robert C. Reiner Jr and colleagues looked at five scenarios. For example, they calculated likely deaths associated with COVID-19 if adoption of mask and social distancing recommendations were nearly universal. They note that Singapore achieved a 95% compliance rate with masks and used this as their “best-case scenario” model.

An estimated 129,574 (range, 85,284–170,867) additional lives could be saved if 95% of Americans wore masks in public, their research reveals. This optimistic scenario includes a “plausible reference” in which any US state reaching 8 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million residents would enact 6 weeks of social distancing mandates (SDMs).

Achieving this level of mask compliance in the United States “could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states,” the researchers note.

In contrast, the proportion of Americans wearing masks in public as of September 22 was 49%, according to IHME data.
 

Universal mask use unlikely

“I’m not a modeling expert, but it is an interesting, and as far as I can judge, well-conducted study which looks, state by state, at what might happen in various scenarios around masking policies going forward — and in particular the effect that mandated masking might have,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, told Medscape Medical News.  

“However, the scenario is a thought experiment. Near-universal mask use is not going to happen in the USA, nor indeed in any individual state, right now, given how emotive the issue has become,” added Greenhalgh, professor in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University, UK. She was not affiliated with the study.

“Hence, whilst I am broadly supportive of the science,” she said, “I’m not confident that this paper will be able to change policy.”
 

Other ‘What if?’ scenarios

The authors also predicted the mortality implications associated with lower adherence to masks, the presence or absence of SDMs, and what could happen if mandates continue to ease at their current rate.

For example, they considered a scenario with less-than-universal mask use in public, 85%, along with SDMs being reinstated based on the mortality rate threshold. In this instance, they found an additional 95,814 (range, 60,731–133,077) lives could be spared by February 28.

Another calculation looked at outcomes if 95% of Americans wore masks going forward without states instituting SDMs at any point. In this case, the researchers predict that 490,437 Americans would die from COVID-19 by February 2021.

A fourth analysis revealed what would happen without greater mask use if the mortality threshold triggered 6 weeks of SDMs as warranted. Under this ‘plausible reference’ calculation, a total 511,373 Americans would die from COVID-19 by the end of February.

A fifth scenario predicted potential mortality if states continue easing SDMs at the current pace. “This is an alternative scenario to the more probable situation where states are expected to respond to an impending health crisis by reinstating some SDMs,” the authors note. The predicted number of American deaths appears more dire in this calculation. The investigators predict cumulative total deaths could reach 1,053,206 (range, 759,693–1,452,397) by the end of February 2021.

The death toll would likely vary among states in this scenario. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania would like account for approximately one third of all deaths.

All the modeling scenarios considered other factors including pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita.
 

“I have seen the IHME study and I agree with the broad conclusions,” Richard Stutt, PhD, of the Epidemiology and Modelling Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Medscape Medical News.

“Case numbers are climbing in the US, and without further intervention, there will be a significant number of deaths over the coming months,” he said.

Masks are low cost and widely available, Stutt said. “I am hopeful that even if masks are not widely adopted, we will not see as many deaths as predicted here, as these outbreaks can be significantly reduced by increased social distancing or lockdowns.”

“However this comes at a far higher economic cost than the use of masks, and still requires action,” added Stutt, who authored a study in June that modeled facemasks in combination with “lock-down” measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling study results depend on the assumptions researchers make, and the IHME team rightly tested a number of different assumptions, Greenhalgh said.

“The key conclusion,” she added, “is here: ‘The implementation of SDMs as soon as individual states reach a threshold of 8 daily deaths per million could dramatically ameliorate the effects of the disease; achieving near-universal mask use could delay, or in many states, possibly prevent, this threshold from being reached and has the potential to save the most lives while minimizing damage to the economy.’ “

“This is a useful piece of information and I think is borne out by their data,” added Greenhalgh, lead author of an April study on face masks for the public during the pandemic.

You can visit the IHME website for the most current mortality projections.

Caplan, Greenhalgh, and Stutt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Half of Chinese American parents and their children report having experienced an in-person episode of racial discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to results from a survey study.

In the United States, where public officials continue to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” and have often sought to draw attention to its origins in Wuhan, China, “the associations between discrimination triggered by the racialization of this acute public health crisis and mental health are unknown,” Charissa S.L. Cheah, PhD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and colleagues wrote.

For their research published Oct. 29 in Pediatrics, Dr. Cheah and colleagues recruited a cohort of 543 Chinese American parents of school-age children, and 230 of their children aged 10-18 years, to complete online surveys between mid-March and late May 2020. Parents in the cohort were largely foreign born, with all identifying as ethnically Chinese, while their children were mostly U.S. born.
 

Evidence of discrimination against Chinese Americans

Half of parents and their children (51% of parents and 50% of youth) reported experiencing at least one in-person incident of direct discrimination (assessed using questions derived from a validated scale of racial aggression) related to the pandemic. Dr. Cheah and colleagues also reported a high incidence of direct discrimination online (32% of parents and 46% of youth). Additionally, the researchers measured reports of vicarious or indirect discrimination – such as hearing jokes or disparaging remarks about one’s ethnic group – which they used a different adapted scale to capture. More than three-quarters of the cohort reported such experiences.

The experiences of discrimination likely bore on the mental health of both parents and youth. Using a series of instruments designed to measure overall psychological well-being as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and certain emotional and behavioral outcomes, Dr. Cheah and colleagues reported significant negative associations between direct online or in-person discrimination and psychological health. For parents and children alike, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with all varieties of discrimination experiences measured in the study.

About a fifth of the youth in the study were deemed, based on the symptom scales used in the study, to have an elevated risk of clinically significant mental health problems, higher than the 10%-15% that would be expected for these age groups in the United States.

“This study revealed that a high percentage of Chinese American parents and their children personally experienced or witnessed anti-Chinese or anti–Asian American racial discrimination both online and in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the investigators wrote. “Most respondents reported directly experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination against other Chinese or Asian American individuals due to COVID-19 at least once.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues noted that their cross-sectional study did not lend itself to causal interpretations and was vulnerable to certain types of reporting bias. Nonetheless, they argued, as the pandemic continues, “pediatricians should be sensitive to the potential mental health needs of Chinese American youth and their parents related to various forms of racism, in addition to other stressors, as the foundations of perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination and their consequences may be set during this period.”
 

COVID-19 didn’t only bring infection

In an accompanying editorial, Tina L. Cheng, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her daughter Alison M. Conca-Cheng, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., remarked that the study’s findings were consistent with recent research that found “4 in 10 Americans reported that it has become more common since COVID-19 for people to express racist views about Asian Americans,” and also described an increase in complaints of discriminatory experiences by Asian Americans.

In this context, a link to poor mental health “should be no surprise,” Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng argued, and urged pediatricians to consult the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2019 policy statement on racism and on child and adolescent health. “It calls for us to optimize clinical practice, improve workforce development and professional education, strengthen research, and deploy systems through community engagement, advocacy, and public policy.”

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington, called the study’s main points “clear and disturbing.”

“While it is difficult to find much in the way here of a silver lining, these alarming reports have helped people working in health care and mental health to understand racism as another form of trauma and abuse which, like other types, can have real negative effects on health,” Dr. Rettew said in an interview. “The more we as mental health professions ask about racism and offer resources for people who have experienced it, just as we would people who have endured other types of trauma, the more we can help people heal. That said, it would be better just to stop this from happening in the first place.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues’ study was supported by a National Science Foundation grant. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng disclosed no financial conflicts of interest related to their editorial. Dr. Rettew said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cheah CSL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021816.

Half of Chinese American parents and their children report having experienced an in-person episode of racial discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to results from a survey study.

In the United States, where public officials continue to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” and have often sought to draw attention to its origins in Wuhan, China, “the associations between discrimination triggered by the racialization of this acute public health crisis and mental health are unknown,” Charissa S.L. Cheah, PhD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and colleagues wrote.

For their research published Oct. 29 in Pediatrics, Dr. Cheah and colleagues recruited a cohort of 543 Chinese American parents of school-age children, and 230 of their children aged 10-18 years, to complete online surveys between mid-March and late May 2020. Parents in the cohort were largely foreign born, with all identifying as ethnically Chinese, while their children were mostly U.S. born.
 

Evidence of discrimination against Chinese Americans

Half of parents and their children (51% of parents and 50% of youth) reported experiencing at least one in-person incident of direct discrimination (assessed using questions derived from a validated scale of racial aggression) related to the pandemic. Dr. Cheah and colleagues also reported a high incidence of direct discrimination online (32% of parents and 46% of youth). Additionally, the researchers measured reports of vicarious or indirect discrimination – such as hearing jokes or disparaging remarks about one’s ethnic group – which they used a different adapted scale to capture. More than three-quarters of the cohort reported such experiences.

The experiences of discrimination likely bore on the mental health of both parents and youth. Using a series of instruments designed to measure overall psychological well-being as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and certain emotional and behavioral outcomes, Dr. Cheah and colleagues reported significant negative associations between direct online or in-person discrimination and psychological health. For parents and children alike, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with all varieties of discrimination experiences measured in the study.

About a fifth of the youth in the study were deemed, based on the symptom scales used in the study, to have an elevated risk of clinically significant mental health problems, higher than the 10%-15% that would be expected for these age groups in the United States.

“This study revealed that a high percentage of Chinese American parents and their children personally experienced or witnessed anti-Chinese or anti–Asian American racial discrimination both online and in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the investigators wrote. “Most respondents reported directly experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination against other Chinese or Asian American individuals due to COVID-19 at least once.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues noted that their cross-sectional study did not lend itself to causal interpretations and was vulnerable to certain types of reporting bias. Nonetheless, they argued, as the pandemic continues, “pediatricians should be sensitive to the potential mental health needs of Chinese American youth and their parents related to various forms of racism, in addition to other stressors, as the foundations of perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination and their consequences may be set during this period.”
 

COVID-19 didn’t only bring infection

In an accompanying editorial, Tina L. Cheng, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her daughter Alison M. Conca-Cheng, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., remarked that the study’s findings were consistent with recent research that found “4 in 10 Americans reported that it has become more common since COVID-19 for people to express racist views about Asian Americans,” and also described an increase in complaints of discriminatory experiences by Asian Americans.

In this context, a link to poor mental health “should be no surprise,” Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng argued, and urged pediatricians to consult the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2019 policy statement on racism and on child and adolescent health. “It calls for us to optimize clinical practice, improve workforce development and professional education, strengthen research, and deploy systems through community engagement, advocacy, and public policy.”

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington, called the study’s main points “clear and disturbing.”

“While it is difficult to find much in the way here of a silver lining, these alarming reports have helped people working in health care and mental health to understand racism as another form of trauma and abuse which, like other types, can have real negative effects on health,” Dr. Rettew said in an interview. “The more we as mental health professions ask about racism and offer resources for people who have experienced it, just as we would people who have endured other types of trauma, the more we can help people heal. That said, it would be better just to stop this from happening in the first place.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues’ study was supported by a National Science Foundation grant. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng disclosed no financial conflicts of interest related to their editorial. Dr. Rettew said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cheah CSL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021816.

Half of Chinese American parents and their children report having experienced an in-person episode of racial discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to results from a survey study.

In the United States, where public officials continue to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” and have often sought to draw attention to its origins in Wuhan, China, “the associations between discrimination triggered by the racialization of this acute public health crisis and mental health are unknown,” Charissa S.L. Cheah, PhD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and colleagues wrote.

For their research published Oct. 29 in Pediatrics, Dr. Cheah and colleagues recruited a cohort of 543 Chinese American parents of school-age children, and 230 of their children aged 10-18 years, to complete online surveys between mid-March and late May 2020. Parents in the cohort were largely foreign born, with all identifying as ethnically Chinese, while their children were mostly U.S. born.
 

Evidence of discrimination against Chinese Americans

Half of parents and their children (51% of parents and 50% of youth) reported experiencing at least one in-person incident of direct discrimination (assessed using questions derived from a validated scale of racial aggression) related to the pandemic. Dr. Cheah and colleagues also reported a high incidence of direct discrimination online (32% of parents and 46% of youth). Additionally, the researchers measured reports of vicarious or indirect discrimination – such as hearing jokes or disparaging remarks about one’s ethnic group – which they used a different adapted scale to capture. More than three-quarters of the cohort reported such experiences.

The experiences of discrimination likely bore on the mental health of both parents and youth. Using a series of instruments designed to measure overall psychological well-being as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and certain emotional and behavioral outcomes, Dr. Cheah and colleagues reported significant negative associations between direct online or in-person discrimination and psychological health. For parents and children alike, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with all varieties of discrimination experiences measured in the study.

About a fifth of the youth in the study were deemed, based on the symptom scales used in the study, to have an elevated risk of clinically significant mental health problems, higher than the 10%-15% that would be expected for these age groups in the United States.

“This study revealed that a high percentage of Chinese American parents and their children personally experienced or witnessed anti-Chinese or anti–Asian American racial discrimination both online and in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the investigators wrote. “Most respondents reported directly experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination against other Chinese or Asian American individuals due to COVID-19 at least once.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues noted that their cross-sectional study did not lend itself to causal interpretations and was vulnerable to certain types of reporting bias. Nonetheless, they argued, as the pandemic continues, “pediatricians should be sensitive to the potential mental health needs of Chinese American youth and their parents related to various forms of racism, in addition to other stressors, as the foundations of perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination and their consequences may be set during this period.”
 

COVID-19 didn’t only bring infection

In an accompanying editorial, Tina L. Cheng, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her daughter Alison M. Conca-Cheng, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., remarked that the study’s findings were consistent with recent research that found “4 in 10 Americans reported that it has become more common since COVID-19 for people to express racist views about Asian Americans,” and also described an increase in complaints of discriminatory experiences by Asian Americans.

In this context, a link to poor mental health “should be no surprise,” Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng argued, and urged pediatricians to consult the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2019 policy statement on racism and on child and adolescent health. “It calls for us to optimize clinical practice, improve workforce development and professional education, strengthen research, and deploy systems through community engagement, advocacy, and public policy.”

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington, called the study’s main points “clear and disturbing.”

“While it is difficult to find much in the way here of a silver lining, these alarming reports have helped people working in health care and mental health to understand racism as another form of trauma and abuse which, like other types, can have real negative effects on health,” Dr. Rettew said in an interview. “The more we as mental health professions ask about racism and offer resources for people who have experienced it, just as we would people who have endured other types of trauma, the more we can help people heal. That said, it would be better just to stop this from happening in the first place.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues’ study was supported by a National Science Foundation grant. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng disclosed no financial conflicts of interest related to their editorial. Dr. Rettew said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cheah CSL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021816.

A new consensus statement offers detailed guidelines for inpatient use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.

Aimed at clinicians, researchers, and hospital administrators, the open-access document was recently published by a multidisciplinary international panel of 24 experts in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

The statement includes 77 separate recommendations under five headings: 1) continued use of CGM by patients already using them at home, 2) initiation of CGM in hospital, 3) continuation of AID systems in hospital by patients already using them at home, 4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGM and AID systems, and 5) data management of CGM and AID systems in hospital.

“This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date guideline on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital now,” lead author Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

“Overall, most experts believe that CGM and AID have the potential to overcome the current limitations of glycemic monitoring in the hospital to improve patient outcomes, but we need research – first to get the approval and second to get widespread use,” said Galindo, medical chair of the hospital diabetes taskforce at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
 

“COVID-19 changed everything”

The guideline is an update of a 2017 statement on hospital use of CGM. The new guideline adds AID systems (sometimes referred to as an artificial pancreas), which combines a CGM and insulin pump and uses an algorithm to guide insulin delivery, and is the first to be developed during the COVID-19 era.

The update had been planned prior to the pandemic, but the actual panel meeting took place in April 2020, after the US Food and Drug Administration allowed inpatient use of CGM despite lack of official approval.

“COVID-19 changed everything. ... We had to be more specific about how to implement CGM in these patients. The standard of care is hourly point-of-care glucose monitoring in the [ICU], and at least every 4 hours outside the ICU. With limited [personal protective equipment] and the burden on nursing it was unachievable,” Galindo explained.

In June 2020, Galindo and other guideline authors developed a COVID-19–specific document (also open-access), which goes more into detail about CGM and how to implement in-hospital use during the pandemic.

The current consensus guideline “provides a high-level review of the evidence by experts,” Galindo added.
 

Recommendations cover different technologies and hospital settings

The panel “strongly” advises that hospital providers consult with an inpatient diabetes team, if available, to help manage patients already using CGM prior to admission. Among other recommendations, they list several situations in which CGM data should not be relied upon for management decisions, including severe hyper- or hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or in patients with skin infections near the sensor site.

The panel also call for more research into outcomes for CGM continuation in the hospital and optimal implementation of both CGM and point-of-care glucose testing. For hospitals, strong recommendations include developing standard CGM data reports and workflows, as well as policies for CGM use.

Galindo pointed out: “A lot of hospitals have policies on that, but there aren’t many studies. It’s just that patients like it and it’s very hard to take it away from patients when they’re doing well.”

The section on CGM inpatient initiation is where COVID-19 plays the greatest role, which includes just one strong clinical practice recommendation: “Healthcare providers should consider prescribing CGM to reduce the need for frequent nurse contact for point-of-care glucose testing and the use of personal protective equipment for patients on isolation with highly contagious infectious diseases (eg, COVID-19).”

Strong recommendations also include a call for outcomes research and for hospitals to develop CGM protocols and educational tools for staff.

“We can do a study for approval but if administration and hospital policies aren’t there we’re not going to be able to use them,” Galindo noted.

For patients who already use AID systems – either the Medtronic 670G or Tandem Control IQ in the United States – the panel advises assessment to ensure the AID system is the most appropriate inpatient treatment, and the development of an alternative plan for diabetes management, if necessary. They also strongly recommend research in this area, and for hospitals to develop protocols for use of AID systems in various clinical situations.
 

Most detailed guidance addresses logistics and data management

Most of the strong recommendations regarding logistics are aimed at nursing staff, including receiving training in use of CGM and AID systems, confirming patient capacity, inspection of devices, and understanding when to administer a point-of-care glucose test.

Again, the panel calls for more data and for hospitals to develop policies and protocols for ensuring safe CGM and AID systems use, and when to avoid use.

Finally, they make one strong clinical recommendation regarding data management: “Healthcare providers should develop a set of core data elements and definitions for CGM data for inclusion in common data models and the electronic health record.”

That’s followed by a long list of relevant recommendations for research in the area, and for hospitals to integrate CGM and AID system data into their EHR systems.

This last area has proven particularly challenging, Galindo said. “Right now we do four point-of-care glucoses a day, and that goes right into the EHR, but with CGM it’s much more than that. How do we get all those data into the EHR and interpret it? Many steps need to be taken into consideration.”

Studies are being conducted in order to fulfill requirements for FDA approval of inpatient CGM use, he said, with data on implementation and inpatient AID system use to follow.

“More data will be available, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of technology in the hospital goes beyond COVID-19,” he said

Galindo has reported receiving unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Valeritas. He is partially supported by research grants from the NIH/NIDDK.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement offers detailed guidelines for inpatient use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.

Aimed at clinicians, researchers, and hospital administrators, the open-access document was recently published by a multidisciplinary international panel of 24 experts in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

The statement includes 77 separate recommendations under five headings: 1) continued use of CGM by patients already using them at home, 2) initiation of CGM in hospital, 3) continuation of AID systems in hospital by patients already using them at home, 4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGM and AID systems, and 5) data management of CGM and AID systems in hospital.

“This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date guideline on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital now,” lead author Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

“Overall, most experts believe that CGM and AID have the potential to overcome the current limitations of glycemic monitoring in the hospital to improve patient outcomes, but we need research – first to get the approval and second to get widespread use,” said Galindo, medical chair of the hospital diabetes taskforce at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
 

“COVID-19 changed everything”

The guideline is an update of a 2017 statement on hospital use of CGM. The new guideline adds AID systems (sometimes referred to as an artificial pancreas), which combines a CGM and insulin pump and uses an algorithm to guide insulin delivery, and is the first to be developed during the COVID-19 era.

The update had been planned prior to the pandemic, but the actual panel meeting took place in April 2020, after the US Food and Drug Administration allowed inpatient use of CGM despite lack of official approval.

“COVID-19 changed everything. ... We had to be more specific about how to implement CGM in these patients. The standard of care is hourly point-of-care glucose monitoring in the [ICU], and at least every 4 hours outside the ICU. With limited [personal protective equipment] and the burden on nursing it was unachievable,” Galindo explained.

In June 2020, Galindo and other guideline authors developed a COVID-19–specific document (also open-access), which goes more into detail about CGM and how to implement in-hospital use during the pandemic.

The current consensus guideline “provides a high-level review of the evidence by experts,” Galindo added.
 

Recommendations cover different technologies and hospital settings

The panel “strongly” advises that hospital providers consult with an inpatient diabetes team, if available, to help manage patients already using CGM prior to admission. Among other recommendations, they list several situations in which CGM data should not be relied upon for management decisions, including severe hyper- or hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or in patients with skin infections near the sensor site.

The panel also call for more research into outcomes for CGM continuation in the hospital and optimal implementation of both CGM and point-of-care glucose testing. For hospitals, strong recommendations include developing standard CGM data reports and workflows, as well as policies for CGM use.

Galindo pointed out: “A lot of hospitals have policies on that, but there aren’t many studies. It’s just that patients like it and it’s very hard to take it away from patients when they’re doing well.”

The section on CGM inpatient initiation is where COVID-19 plays the greatest role, which includes just one strong clinical practice recommendation: “Healthcare providers should consider prescribing CGM to reduce the need for frequent nurse contact for point-of-care glucose testing and the use of personal protective equipment for patients on isolation with highly contagious infectious diseases (eg, COVID-19).”

Strong recommendations also include a call for outcomes research and for hospitals to develop CGM protocols and educational tools for staff.

“We can do a study for approval but if administration and hospital policies aren’t there we’re not going to be able to use them,” Galindo noted.

For patients who already use AID systems – either the Medtronic 670G or Tandem Control IQ in the United States – the panel advises assessment to ensure the AID system is the most appropriate inpatient treatment, and the development of an alternative plan for diabetes management, if necessary. They also strongly recommend research in this area, and for hospitals to develop protocols for use of AID systems in various clinical situations.
 

Most detailed guidance addresses logistics and data management

Most of the strong recommendations regarding logistics are aimed at nursing staff, including receiving training in use of CGM and AID systems, confirming patient capacity, inspection of devices, and understanding when to administer a point-of-care glucose test.

Again, the panel calls for more data and for hospitals to develop policies and protocols for ensuring safe CGM and AID systems use, and when to avoid use.

Finally, they make one strong clinical recommendation regarding data management: “Healthcare providers should develop a set of core data elements and definitions for CGM data for inclusion in common data models and the electronic health record.”

That’s followed by a long list of relevant recommendations for research in the area, and for hospitals to integrate CGM and AID system data into their EHR systems.

This last area has proven particularly challenging, Galindo said. “Right now we do four point-of-care glucoses a day, and that goes right into the EHR, but with CGM it’s much more than that. How do we get all those data into the EHR and interpret it? Many steps need to be taken into consideration.”

Studies are being conducted in order to fulfill requirements for FDA approval of inpatient CGM use, he said, with data on implementation and inpatient AID system use to follow.

“More data will be available, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of technology in the hospital goes beyond COVID-19,” he said

Galindo has reported receiving unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Valeritas. He is partially supported by research grants from the NIH/NIDDK.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement offers detailed guidelines for inpatient use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.

Aimed at clinicians, researchers, and hospital administrators, the open-access document was recently published by a multidisciplinary international panel of 24 experts in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

The statement includes 77 separate recommendations under five headings: 1) continued use of CGM by patients already using them at home, 2) initiation of CGM in hospital, 3) continuation of AID systems in hospital by patients already using them at home, 4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGM and AID systems, and 5) data management of CGM and AID systems in hospital.

“This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date guideline on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital now,” lead author Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

“Overall, most experts believe that CGM and AID have the potential to overcome the current limitations of glycemic monitoring in the hospital to improve patient outcomes, but we need research – first to get the approval and second to get widespread use,” said Galindo, medical chair of the hospital diabetes taskforce at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
 

“COVID-19 changed everything”

The guideline is an update of a 2017 statement on hospital use of CGM. The new guideline adds AID systems (sometimes referred to as an artificial pancreas), which combines a CGM and insulin pump and uses an algorithm to guide insulin delivery, and is the first to be developed during the COVID-19 era.

The update had been planned prior to the pandemic, but the actual panel meeting took place in April 2020, after the US Food and Drug Administration allowed inpatient use of CGM despite lack of official approval.

“COVID-19 changed everything. ... We had to be more specific about how to implement CGM in these patients. The standard of care is hourly point-of-care glucose monitoring in the [ICU], and at least every 4 hours outside the ICU. With limited [personal protective equipment] and the burden on nursing it was unachievable,” Galindo explained.

In June 2020, Galindo and other guideline authors developed a COVID-19–specific document (also open-access), which goes more into detail about CGM and how to implement in-hospital use during the pandemic.

The current consensus guideline “provides a high-level review of the evidence by experts,” Galindo added.
 

Recommendations cover different technologies and hospital settings

The panel “strongly” advises that hospital providers consult with an inpatient diabetes team, if available, to help manage patients already using CGM prior to admission. Among other recommendations, they list several situations in which CGM data should not be relied upon for management decisions, including severe hyper- or hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or in patients with skin infections near the sensor site.

The panel also call for more research into outcomes for CGM continuation in the hospital and optimal implementation of both CGM and point-of-care glucose testing. For hospitals, strong recommendations include developing standard CGM data reports and workflows, as well as policies for CGM use.

Galindo pointed out: “A lot of hospitals have policies on that, but there aren’t many studies. It’s just that patients like it and it’s very hard to take it away from patients when they’re doing well.”

The section on CGM inpatient initiation is where COVID-19 plays the greatest role, which includes just one strong clinical practice recommendation: “Healthcare providers should consider prescribing CGM to reduce the need for frequent nurse contact for point-of-care glucose testing and the use of personal protective equipment for patients on isolation with highly contagious infectious diseases (eg, COVID-19).”

Strong recommendations also include a call for outcomes research and for hospitals to develop CGM protocols and educational tools for staff.

“We can do a study for approval but if administration and hospital policies aren’t there we’re not going to be able to use them,” Galindo noted.

For patients who already use AID systems – either the Medtronic 670G or Tandem Control IQ in the United States – the panel advises assessment to ensure the AID system is the most appropriate inpatient treatment, and the development of an alternative plan for diabetes management, if necessary. They also strongly recommend research in this area, and for hospitals to develop protocols for use of AID systems in various clinical situations.
 

Most detailed guidance addresses logistics and data management

Most of the strong recommendations regarding logistics are aimed at nursing staff, including receiving training in use of CGM and AID systems, confirming patient capacity, inspection of devices, and understanding when to administer a point-of-care glucose test.

Again, the panel calls for more data and for hospitals to develop policies and protocols for ensuring safe CGM and AID systems use, and when to avoid use.

Finally, they make one strong clinical recommendation regarding data management: “Healthcare providers should develop a set of core data elements and definitions for CGM data for inclusion in common data models and the electronic health record.”

That’s followed by a long list of relevant recommendations for research in the area, and for hospitals to integrate CGM and AID system data into their EHR systems.

This last area has proven particularly challenging, Galindo said. “Right now we do four point-of-care glucoses a day, and that goes right into the EHR, but with CGM it’s much more than that. How do we get all those data into the EHR and interpret it? Many steps need to be taken into consideration.”

Studies are being conducted in order to fulfill requirements for FDA approval of inpatient CGM use, he said, with data on implementation and inpatient AID system use to follow.

“More data will be available, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of technology in the hospital goes beyond COVID-19,” he said

Galindo has reported receiving unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Valeritas. He is partially supported by research grants from the NIH/NIDDK.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.