MDedge Endocrinology

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

While many transgender individuals develop their gender identity early on in life, medically there may not be any intervention until they hit puberty. For prepubertal children, providing a supportive environment and letting them explore gender expression with haircut, clothing, toys, name, and pronouns may be the main “interventions.” Ensure a safe bathroom and safe spaces at school (and home), and perhaps find an experienced therapist comfortable navigating gender concerns. Supporting the family supports the child and can make all the difference in the world. Often clinics specializing in gender care will see young children to provide this support and follow the child into puberty.

Nosyrevy/Getty Images

Once puberty starts, however, medical interventions can be discussed and puberty blockers are a great place to start, given their reversibility. Having an understanding of how puberty blockers work, the side effects, and timing of blocker use is important to the average pediatric provider as you may see some of these children and be able to intervene by sending them to a specialist early!
 

How do puberty blockers work?

One of the first hormonal signals of puberty is the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. GnRH stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the anterior pituitary. LH and FSH then stimulate sex steroidogenesis (production of estradiol or testosterone) and gametogenesis in the gonads. The most common choice for puberty blockers are GnRH agonists, such as leuprolide (a series of shots) or histrelin (an implantable rod), which have been studied extensively for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty, and more recently gender dysphoria. Interestingly, these medicines actually stimulate gonadotropin release and the overproduction makes the gonadotropin receptors less sensitive.¹ Gradually the production of sex steroids decreases. One of the advantages of puberty blockers is that they are reversible – stop the medication and the effects wear off, allowing one to proceed with natal puberty if one so desires. Gender specialists always start with the most reversible intervention, especially at such a young age. Puberty blockers are like a pause button that gives everyone – patient, clinicians, therapists – time to process, explore, and ensure transition is the right path.

Sexual development should stop on puberty blockers. For those born with ovaries, breasts will not continue to develop and menses will not start if premenarchal or stop soon if postmenarchal. For those born with testicles, testicular and penile enlargement will not proceed, the voice will not deepen, hands will not grow in size, and an “Adam’s apple” will not develop. Preventing these changes may not only prevent future surgeries (mastectomy, tracheal shaving, etc.) but may also be lifesaving given the lack of development as secondary sex characteristics may not develop, thus avoiding telltale signs that one has transitioned physically, particularly for transwomen.
 

What are the side effects of puberty blockers?

Whenever an adolescent is started on puberty blockers, it is important to discuss both the main effects (i.e., cessation of puberty and sexual development) as well as the side effects. There are four main side effect areas that are important to cover: bone health and height, brain development, fertility, and surgical implications.

• Bone health & height. Adolescence is an important time for growth. During adolescence, bones grow both in length, which determines an individual’s height, and in density, which can affect risk of osteoporosis later on in life. Sex steroids are an important factor for both of these issues. Estradiol is responsible for closure of the growth plates and, in general, those born with ovaries enter puberty earlier than those born with testicles, therefore they see higher rates of estradiol earlier, which causes cessation of growth, hence why females are typically shorter than males. Delaying these high levels of estrogen may give transmales (female to male individuals) more time to grow. Conversely, decreasing release of testosterone in transfemales (male to female individuals) and then introducing estradiol at higher levels earlier than they would experience with their natal puberty may stop transfemales from growing much taller than the average cisgender woman. Bone density also is a major concern as the sex steroids are very important for bone mass accretion.^1,2 Studies in transgender individuals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry show that, for transmale patients, z scores do decrease but they tend to catch up once gender-affirming hormones are started. For transfemale patients, the z scores don’t decrease as much but also don’t increase as much once estrogen is started.^1,3 It is for these reasons that the Endocrine Society guidelines recommend monitoring bone density both before and while on puberty blockers.^4,5
• Brain development. Adolescence also is an important time for brain development, particularly the areas that focus on executive function. Studies comparing transgender patients on GnRH agonists noted no detrimental effects on higher-order cognitive process associated with a specific task meant to test executive function.⁶ Although not performed on transgender individuals, a study examining girls with central precocious puberty on GnRH agonists found no difference with the control group on auditory and visual memory, response inhibition, spatial ability, behavioral problems, or social competence.⁷
• Fertility. Suspending puberty at an early Sexual Maturity Rating (such as stage 2 or 3) may make it difficult to harvest mature oocytes or spermatozoa, thus compromising long-term fertility, especially once they start on gender-affirming hormones. While some patients may choose to delay starting puberty blockers for the sake of cryopreservation, others may be in too much distress at their pubertal changes to wait. Fertility counseling is thus an important aspect of the discussion with transgender patients considering puberty blockers and/or gender-affirming hormones.
• Surgical implications. The most common “bottom surgery” performed in transfemales is called penile inversion vaginoplasty, which uses the penile and scrotal skin to create a neovagina.⁸ However, one has to have enough penile and scrotal development for this surgery to be successful, which may mean waiting until a patient has reached Sexual Maturity Rating stage 4 before starting blockers. There are alternative surgical options, but one must discuss the risks and benefits of waiting to start blockers with the patient and family.

When can puberty blockers be started?

Patients must meet criteria for gender dysphoria with emergence or worsening with puberty.⁹ Any coexisting conditions (psychological, medical, social) that could interfere with treatment have to be addressed, and both the patient and their guardian must undergo informed consent for treatment.^4,5,10 Puberty blockers cannot be used until after puberty has started, so at least Sexual Maturity Rating stage 2. In the early stages of puberty, hormonally one will see LH rise followed by rise in estradiol and/or testosterone. Consideration for both the development of secondary sex characteristics and associated increased distress or dysphoria as well as surgical implications must be weighed in each individual case. The bottom line is that these medications can be life saving and are reversible, so if a patient and/or family decides to stop them, the effects will wear off and natal puberty will resume.

Dr. Lawlis is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2.

2. Bone. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.10.005.

3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-0345.

5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658.

6. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007.

7. Front Psychol. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053.

8. Sex Med Rev. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.001.

9. “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” 5th ed. (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

10. Int J Transgend. 2012. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873.

While many transgender individuals develop their gender identity early on in life, medically there may not be any intervention until they hit puberty. For prepubertal children, providing a supportive environment and letting them explore gender expression with haircut, clothing, toys, name, and pronouns may be the main “interventions.” Ensure a safe bathroom and safe spaces at school (and home), and perhaps find an experienced therapist comfortable navigating gender concerns. Supporting the family supports the child and can make all the difference in the world. Often clinics specializing in gender care will see young children to provide this support and follow the child into puberty.

Nosyrevy/Getty Images

Once puberty starts, however, medical interventions can be discussed and puberty blockers are a great place to start, given their reversibility. Having an understanding of how puberty blockers work, the side effects, and timing of blocker use is important to the average pediatric provider as you may see some of these children and be able to intervene by sending them to a specialist early!
 

How do puberty blockers work?

One of the first hormonal signals of puberty is the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. GnRH stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the anterior pituitary. LH and FSH then stimulate sex steroidogenesis (production of estradiol or testosterone) and gametogenesis in the gonads. The most common choice for puberty blockers are GnRH agonists, such as leuprolide (a series of shots) or histrelin (an implantable rod), which have been studied extensively for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty, and more recently gender dysphoria. Interestingly, these medicines actually stimulate gonadotropin release and the overproduction makes the gonadotropin receptors less sensitive.¹ Gradually the production of sex steroids decreases. One of the advantages of puberty blockers is that they are reversible – stop the medication and the effects wear off, allowing one to proceed with natal puberty if one so desires. Gender specialists always start with the most reversible intervention, especially at such a young age. Puberty blockers are like a pause button that gives everyone – patient, clinicians, therapists – time to process, explore, and ensure transition is the right path.

Sexual development should stop on puberty blockers. For those born with ovaries, breasts will not continue to develop and menses will not start if premenarchal or stop soon if postmenarchal. For those born with testicles, testicular and penile enlargement will not proceed, the voice will not deepen, hands will not grow in size, and an “Adam’s apple” will not develop. Preventing these changes may not only prevent future surgeries (mastectomy, tracheal shaving, etc.) but may also be lifesaving given the lack of development as secondary sex characteristics may not develop, thus avoiding telltale signs that one has transitioned physically, particularly for transwomen.
 

What are the side effects of puberty blockers?

Whenever an adolescent is started on puberty blockers, it is important to discuss both the main effects (i.e., cessation of puberty and sexual development) as well as the side effects. There are four main side effect areas that are important to cover: bone health and height, brain development, fertility, and surgical implications.

• Bone health & height. Adolescence is an important time for growth. During adolescence, bones grow both in length, which determines an individual’s height, and in density, which can affect risk of osteoporosis later on in life. Sex steroids are an important factor for both of these issues. Estradiol is responsible for closure of the growth plates and, in general, those born with ovaries enter puberty earlier than those born with testicles, therefore they see higher rates of estradiol earlier, which causes cessation of growth, hence why females are typically shorter than males. Delaying these high levels of estrogen may give transmales (female to male individuals) more time to grow. Conversely, decreasing release of testosterone in transfemales (male to female individuals) and then introducing estradiol at higher levels earlier than they would experience with their natal puberty may stop transfemales from growing much taller than the average cisgender woman. Bone density also is a major concern as the sex steroids are very important for bone mass accretion.^1,2 Studies in transgender individuals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry show that, for transmale patients, z scores do decrease but they tend to catch up once gender-affirming hormones are started. For transfemale patients, the z scores don’t decrease as much but also don’t increase as much once estrogen is started.^1,3 It is for these reasons that the Endocrine Society guidelines recommend monitoring bone density both before and while on puberty blockers.^4,5
• Brain development. Adolescence also is an important time for brain development, particularly the areas that focus on executive function. Studies comparing transgender patients on GnRH agonists noted no detrimental effects on higher-order cognitive process associated with a specific task meant to test executive function.⁶ Although not performed on transgender individuals, a study examining girls with central precocious puberty on GnRH agonists found no difference with the control group on auditory and visual memory, response inhibition, spatial ability, behavioral problems, or social competence.⁷
• Fertility. Suspending puberty at an early Sexual Maturity Rating (such as stage 2 or 3) may make it difficult to harvest mature oocytes or spermatozoa, thus compromising long-term fertility, especially once they start on gender-affirming hormones. While some patients may choose to delay starting puberty blockers for the sake of cryopreservation, others may be in too much distress at their pubertal changes to wait. Fertility counseling is thus an important aspect of the discussion with transgender patients considering puberty blockers and/or gender-affirming hormones.
• Surgical implications. The most common “bottom surgery” performed in transfemales is called penile inversion vaginoplasty, which uses the penile and scrotal skin to create a neovagina.⁸ However, one has to have enough penile and scrotal development for this surgery to be successful, which may mean waiting until a patient has reached Sexual Maturity Rating stage 4 before starting blockers. There are alternative surgical options, but one must discuss the risks and benefits of waiting to start blockers with the patient and family.

When can puberty blockers be started?

Patients must meet criteria for gender dysphoria with emergence or worsening with puberty.⁹ Any coexisting conditions (psychological, medical, social) that could interfere with treatment have to be addressed, and both the patient and their guardian must undergo informed consent for treatment.^4,5,10 Puberty blockers cannot be used until after puberty has started, so at least Sexual Maturity Rating stage 2. In the early stages of puberty, hormonally one will see LH rise followed by rise in estradiol and/or testosterone. Consideration for both the development of secondary sex characteristics and associated increased distress or dysphoria as well as surgical implications must be weighed in each individual case. The bottom line is that these medications can be life saving and are reversible, so if a patient and/or family decides to stop them, the effects will wear off and natal puberty will resume.

Dr. Lawlis is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2.

2. Bone. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.10.005.

3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-0345.

5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658.

6. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007.

7. Front Psychol. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053.

8. Sex Med Rev. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.001.

9. “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” 5th ed. (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

10. Int J Transgend. 2012. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873.

While many transgender individuals develop their gender identity early on in life, medically there may not be any intervention until they hit puberty. For prepubertal children, providing a supportive environment and letting them explore gender expression with haircut, clothing, toys, name, and pronouns may be the main “interventions.” Ensure a safe bathroom and safe spaces at school (and home), and perhaps find an experienced therapist comfortable navigating gender concerns. Supporting the family supports the child and can make all the difference in the world. Often clinics specializing in gender care will see young children to provide this support and follow the child into puberty.

Nosyrevy/Getty Images

Once puberty starts, however, medical interventions can be discussed and puberty blockers are a great place to start, given their reversibility. Having an understanding of how puberty blockers work, the side effects, and timing of blocker use is important to the average pediatric provider as you may see some of these children and be able to intervene by sending them to a specialist early!
 

How do puberty blockers work?

One of the first hormonal signals of puberty is the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. GnRH stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the anterior pituitary. LH and FSH then stimulate sex steroidogenesis (production of estradiol or testosterone) and gametogenesis in the gonads. The most common choice for puberty blockers are GnRH agonists, such as leuprolide (a series of shots) or histrelin (an implantable rod), which have been studied extensively for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty, and more recently gender dysphoria. Interestingly, these medicines actually stimulate gonadotropin release and the overproduction makes the gonadotropin receptors less sensitive.¹ Gradually the production of sex steroids decreases. One of the advantages of puberty blockers is that they are reversible – stop the medication and the effects wear off, allowing one to proceed with natal puberty if one so desires. Gender specialists always start with the most reversible intervention, especially at such a young age. Puberty blockers are like a pause button that gives everyone – patient, clinicians, therapists – time to process, explore, and ensure transition is the right path.

Sexual development should stop on puberty blockers. For those born with ovaries, breasts will not continue to develop and menses will not start if premenarchal or stop soon if postmenarchal. For those born with testicles, testicular and penile enlargement will not proceed, the voice will not deepen, hands will not grow in size, and an “Adam’s apple” will not develop. Preventing these changes may not only prevent future surgeries (mastectomy, tracheal shaving, etc.) but may also be lifesaving given the lack of development as secondary sex characteristics may not develop, thus avoiding telltale signs that one has transitioned physically, particularly for transwomen.
 

What are the side effects of puberty blockers?

Whenever an adolescent is started on puberty blockers, it is important to discuss both the main effects (i.e., cessation of puberty and sexual development) as well as the side effects. There are four main side effect areas that are important to cover: bone health and height, brain development, fertility, and surgical implications.

• Bone health & height. Adolescence is an important time for growth. During adolescence, bones grow both in length, which determines an individual’s height, and in density, which can affect risk of osteoporosis later on in life. Sex steroids are an important factor for both of these issues. Estradiol is responsible for closure of the growth plates and, in general, those born with ovaries enter puberty earlier than those born with testicles, therefore they see higher rates of estradiol earlier, which causes cessation of growth, hence why females are typically shorter than males. Delaying these high levels of estrogen may give transmales (female to male individuals) more time to grow. Conversely, decreasing release of testosterone in transfemales (male to female individuals) and then introducing estradiol at higher levels earlier than they would experience with their natal puberty may stop transfemales from growing much taller than the average cisgender woman. Bone density also is a major concern as the sex steroids are very important for bone mass accretion.^1,2 Studies in transgender individuals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry show that, for transmale patients, z scores do decrease but they tend to catch up once gender-affirming hormones are started. For transfemale patients, the z scores don’t decrease as much but also don’t increase as much once estrogen is started.^1,3 It is for these reasons that the Endocrine Society guidelines recommend monitoring bone density both before and while on puberty blockers.^4,5
• Brain development. Adolescence also is an important time for brain development, particularly the areas that focus on executive function. Studies comparing transgender patients on GnRH agonists noted no detrimental effects on higher-order cognitive process associated with a specific task meant to test executive function.⁶ Although not performed on transgender individuals, a study examining girls with central precocious puberty on GnRH agonists found no difference with the control group on auditory and visual memory, response inhibition, spatial ability, behavioral problems, or social competence.⁷
• Fertility. Suspending puberty at an early Sexual Maturity Rating (such as stage 2 or 3) may make it difficult to harvest mature oocytes or spermatozoa, thus compromising long-term fertility, especially once they start on gender-affirming hormones. While some patients may choose to delay starting puberty blockers for the sake of cryopreservation, others may be in too much distress at their pubertal changes to wait. Fertility counseling is thus an important aspect of the discussion with transgender patients considering puberty blockers and/or gender-affirming hormones.
• Surgical implications. The most common “bottom surgery” performed in transfemales is called penile inversion vaginoplasty, which uses the penile and scrotal skin to create a neovagina.⁸ However, one has to have enough penile and scrotal development for this surgery to be successful, which may mean waiting until a patient has reached Sexual Maturity Rating stage 4 before starting blockers. There are alternative surgical options, but one must discuss the risks and benefits of waiting to start blockers with the patient and family.

When can puberty blockers be started?

Patients must meet criteria for gender dysphoria with emergence or worsening with puberty.⁹ Any coexisting conditions (psychological, medical, social) that could interfere with treatment have to be addressed, and both the patient and their guardian must undergo informed consent for treatment.^4,5,10 Puberty blockers cannot be used until after puberty has started, so at least Sexual Maturity Rating stage 2. In the early stages of puberty, hormonally one will see LH rise followed by rise in estradiol and/or testosterone. Consideration for both the development of secondary sex characteristics and associated increased distress or dysphoria as well as surgical implications must be weighed in each individual case. The bottom line is that these medications can be life saving and are reversible, so if a patient and/or family decides to stop them, the effects will wear off and natal puberty will resume.

Dr. Lawlis is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2.

2. Bone. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.10.005.

3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-0345.

5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658.

6. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007.

7. Front Psychol. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053.

8. Sex Med Rev. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.001.

9. “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” 5th ed. (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

10. Int J Transgend. 2012. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873.

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

This year’s virtual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) offers new data and insights regarding the use of newer glucose-lowering agents for treating people with, and without, diabetes, as well as updates on diabetes technology, a symposium on COVID-19, and much more.

The meeting takes place live online September 22-25, Central European time, because it was to have been located in Vienna before the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced nearly all medical meetings to go virtual. However, as in years past, videos of all the sessions will be available to registrants for later viewing and to the public a month after the meeting ends. The registration fee is less than half the cost for previous years.

In fact, EASD was better prepared to go virtual than many other medical societies, and not just because they had more time to plan since the pandemic began, EASD president Stefano Del Prato, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “Starting in 2013 we already had a virtual congress in parallel to the face-to-face meeting. Everything at the congress was simultaneously available on streaming. That made us more confident in what we could achieve with a virtual meeting.”

Last year, the EASD meeting held in Barcelona was the first for which the number of virtual attendees equaled the number who attended in person, about 15,000 each. Another 80,000 people have accessed the video content in the year since.

“Maybe this is a unique occasion for reaching out to a really global audience,” said Del Prato, professor of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa School of Medicine, Italy.  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, the meeting’s program chair, told Medscape Medical News, “I’m really looking forward to this meeting because of the interactivity. I hope that, lacking the possibility of having a physical meeting, this is absolutely the best one can do.”
 

More cardiovascular and renal outcomes for SGLT2 inhibitors 

The impact of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class beyond glucose-lowering has dominated the agenda of diabetes meetings for the past 5 years, and this EASD is no exception.

Here, new data will be presented for the previously reported EMPEROR-Reduced trial of empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) for patients with heart failure with or without diabetes; DAPA-CKD, on renal outcomes for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca); and renal results from the VERTIS CV outcome trial of ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck).

Regarding DAPA-CKD, Del Prato noted, “We will have a greater opportunity ... to go deeper into the results during a 1-hour session.”

A related session, a joint EASD/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) symposium on the “dawn of cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes” will review the development of SGLT2 inhibitors and the data accumulated for the drug class over the past 5 years since the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was first reported at EASD in 2015.

The joint symposium, Rydénsaid, will be “extremely important for clinicians. It’s a revolution in type 2 diabetes treatment, and perhaps in those without diabetes who have heart failure...It’s not about a single company, but experts involved in all the different trials of the different SGLT2 inhibitors...We’re still seeing the huge impact that the SGLT2 inhibitors have made, and the incretins as well. We’re still living in these rumbling years after these huge trials.”

Del Prato also named that symposium as a meeting highlight.

“From a clinical point of view, I think the EMPA-REG 5-year session will be of great interest. That was really a turning point not only in the field of diabetes, but also in cardiology and nephrology. I think that will be a great opportunity to see how quickly and how importantly SGLT2 inhibition has turned into a great opportunity for many people.”
 

Who’s “right” – diabetologists or cardiologists?

Another session likely to draw a crowd of clinicians is a debate about which guidelines are “right”: the ESC’s, which advise first-line use of an SGLT2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist for patients with established CVD or those at high risk, or the more conservative EASD/American Diabetes Association’s, which still advise metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Rydén, who is professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Sweden, commented, “The difference is in how aggressive to be in treatment and when adding drugs...I think we have slightly different ways of seeing things and how we implement them.”

Del Prato noted, “We need to clear the fog about what are the current indications for people with diabetes. There is definitely a point of contact between cardiology and diabetology. ... We like to split [the disciplines] up, but discussion is a good way to get people thinking.”

“It will be very important to address the importance of glucose control but yet also leverage a new form of treatment that will have properties above and beyond glucose-lowering capacity.”
 

Other big trial results: CGM after MI, semaglutide for obesity

Other major new trial results to be presented in dedicated sessions include LIBERATES (Improving Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction: The Role of a Novel Glycaemic Monitoring), and STEP program (Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity).

LIBERATES will compare glycemic control with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor and standard fingerstick glucose monitoring versus blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 90 days after a heart attack. It was a late addition to the meeting program, Rydén noted.

The semaglutide study is looking at weight loss associated with a higher dose of the GLP-1 agonist than is currently approved for diabetes, similar to the way in which liraglutide was developed as an obesity agent after first gaining approval for type 2 diabetes.

Regarding semaglutide, Rydén said, “I’ve heard this one is quite efficient. It will be interesting.”
 

Personalized medicine, COVID-19, intermittent fasting, and much more

Both Rydén and Del Prato also said they were looking forward to a joint EASD/American Diabetes Association symposium on a newly launched precision medicine initiative. The session will include talks on subclassifications of diabetes, genetics, and precision diabetes medicine in practice, as well as lessons on the latter from Greenland.

Rydén noted, “I think it’s interesting for everyone, from the primary healthcare physician to the basic scientist. We’re trying to understand why we have this huge diabetic panorama and how do we identify the subject who should have a specific treatment, or perhaps [will] develop a specific complication of diabetes.”

This field, he predicted, “will grow enormously in the next 10 years.”

Del Prato pointed out, “Diabetes is more heterogeneous than we tend to believe for both types. Better guidance for individualization of treatments could be a great opportunity. ... Ways to better genotype and phenotype the population are becoming less expensive and easier to access. It will be a different way to treat diabetes in the future.”

Other noteworthy conference sessions will address COVID-19 and diabetes, intermittent fasting, new technologies, diabetes and cancer, the role of liver surveillance in patients with diabetes, medicines that can cause diabetes, exercise in type 1 diabetes, and the burden of hypoglycemia.  

There will also be opportunities for networking, Del Prato said. “You’ll be able to walk around with your own avatar. You’ll be assisted by [artificial intelligence] to build your own program based on what you’ve been following. You can participate in discussion rooms. You can walk in and out.”

“We hope people will appreciate the science and the spirit of the congress – mingling, interacting, chatting to start discussion and maybe collaboration. It will be lots of fun. I would like to invite all Medscape readers to come and register.

Rydén has reported being a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Del Prato has reported being a speaker, advisory board member, and/or receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s virtual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) offers new data and insights regarding the use of newer glucose-lowering agents for treating people with, and without, diabetes, as well as updates on diabetes technology, a symposium on COVID-19, and much more.

The meeting takes place live online September 22-25, Central European time, because it was to have been located in Vienna before the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced nearly all medical meetings to go virtual. However, as in years past, videos of all the sessions will be available to registrants for later viewing and to the public a month after the meeting ends. The registration fee is less than half the cost for previous years.

In fact, EASD was better prepared to go virtual than many other medical societies, and not just because they had more time to plan since the pandemic began, EASD president Stefano Del Prato, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “Starting in 2013 we already had a virtual congress in parallel to the face-to-face meeting. Everything at the congress was simultaneously available on streaming. That made us more confident in what we could achieve with a virtual meeting.”

Last year, the EASD meeting held in Barcelona was the first for which the number of virtual attendees equaled the number who attended in person, about 15,000 each. Another 80,000 people have accessed the video content in the year since.

“Maybe this is a unique occasion for reaching out to a really global audience,” said Del Prato, professor of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa School of Medicine, Italy.  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, the meeting’s program chair, told Medscape Medical News, “I’m really looking forward to this meeting because of the interactivity. I hope that, lacking the possibility of having a physical meeting, this is absolutely the best one can do.”
 

More cardiovascular and renal outcomes for SGLT2 inhibitors 

The impact of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class beyond glucose-lowering has dominated the agenda of diabetes meetings for the past 5 years, and this EASD is no exception.

Here, new data will be presented for the previously reported EMPEROR-Reduced trial of empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) for patients with heart failure with or without diabetes; DAPA-CKD, on renal outcomes for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca); and renal results from the VERTIS CV outcome trial of ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck).

Regarding DAPA-CKD, Del Prato noted, “We will have a greater opportunity ... to go deeper into the results during a 1-hour session.”

A related session, a joint EASD/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) symposium on the “dawn of cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes” will review the development of SGLT2 inhibitors and the data accumulated for the drug class over the past 5 years since the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was first reported at EASD in 2015.

The joint symposium, Rydénsaid, will be “extremely important for clinicians. It’s a revolution in type 2 diabetes treatment, and perhaps in those without diabetes who have heart failure...It’s not about a single company, but experts involved in all the different trials of the different SGLT2 inhibitors...We’re still seeing the huge impact that the SGLT2 inhibitors have made, and the incretins as well. We’re still living in these rumbling years after these huge trials.”

Del Prato also named that symposium as a meeting highlight.

“From a clinical point of view, I think the EMPA-REG 5-year session will be of great interest. That was really a turning point not only in the field of diabetes, but also in cardiology and nephrology. I think that will be a great opportunity to see how quickly and how importantly SGLT2 inhibition has turned into a great opportunity for many people.”
 

Who’s “right” – diabetologists or cardiologists?

Another session likely to draw a crowd of clinicians is a debate about which guidelines are “right”: the ESC’s, which advise first-line use of an SGLT2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist for patients with established CVD or those at high risk, or the more conservative EASD/American Diabetes Association’s, which still advise metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Rydén, who is professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Sweden, commented, “The difference is in how aggressive to be in treatment and when adding drugs...I think we have slightly different ways of seeing things and how we implement them.”

Del Prato noted, “We need to clear the fog about what are the current indications for people with diabetes. There is definitely a point of contact between cardiology and diabetology. ... We like to split [the disciplines] up, but discussion is a good way to get people thinking.”

“It will be very important to address the importance of glucose control but yet also leverage a new form of treatment that will have properties above and beyond glucose-lowering capacity.”
 

Other big trial results: CGM after MI, semaglutide for obesity

Other major new trial results to be presented in dedicated sessions include LIBERATES (Improving Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction: The Role of a Novel Glycaemic Monitoring), and STEP program (Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity).

LIBERATES will compare glycemic control with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor and standard fingerstick glucose monitoring versus blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 90 days after a heart attack. It was a late addition to the meeting program, Rydén noted.

The semaglutide study is looking at weight loss associated with a higher dose of the GLP-1 agonist than is currently approved for diabetes, similar to the way in which liraglutide was developed as an obesity agent after first gaining approval for type 2 diabetes.

Regarding semaglutide, Rydén said, “I’ve heard this one is quite efficient. It will be interesting.”
 

Personalized medicine, COVID-19, intermittent fasting, and much more

Both Rydén and Del Prato also said they were looking forward to a joint EASD/American Diabetes Association symposium on a newly launched precision medicine initiative. The session will include talks on subclassifications of diabetes, genetics, and precision diabetes medicine in practice, as well as lessons on the latter from Greenland.

Rydén noted, “I think it’s interesting for everyone, from the primary healthcare physician to the basic scientist. We’re trying to understand why we have this huge diabetic panorama and how do we identify the subject who should have a specific treatment, or perhaps [will] develop a specific complication of diabetes.”

This field, he predicted, “will grow enormously in the next 10 years.”

Del Prato pointed out, “Diabetes is more heterogeneous than we tend to believe for both types. Better guidance for individualization of treatments could be a great opportunity. ... Ways to better genotype and phenotype the population are becoming less expensive and easier to access. It will be a different way to treat diabetes in the future.”

Other noteworthy conference sessions will address COVID-19 and diabetes, intermittent fasting, new technologies, diabetes and cancer, the role of liver surveillance in patients with diabetes, medicines that can cause diabetes, exercise in type 1 diabetes, and the burden of hypoglycemia.  

There will also be opportunities for networking, Del Prato said. “You’ll be able to walk around with your own avatar. You’ll be assisted by [artificial intelligence] to build your own program based on what you’ve been following. You can participate in discussion rooms. You can walk in and out.”

“We hope people will appreciate the science and the spirit of the congress – mingling, interacting, chatting to start discussion and maybe collaboration. It will be lots of fun. I would like to invite all Medscape readers to come and register.

Rydén has reported being a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Del Prato has reported being a speaker, advisory board member, and/or receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s virtual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) offers new data and insights regarding the use of newer glucose-lowering agents for treating people with, and without, diabetes, as well as updates on diabetes technology, a symposium on COVID-19, and much more.

The meeting takes place live online September 22-25, Central European time, because it was to have been located in Vienna before the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced nearly all medical meetings to go virtual. However, as in years past, videos of all the sessions will be available to registrants for later viewing and to the public a month after the meeting ends. The registration fee is less than half the cost for previous years.

In fact, EASD was better prepared to go virtual than many other medical societies, and not just because they had more time to plan since the pandemic began, EASD president Stefano Del Prato, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “Starting in 2013 we already had a virtual congress in parallel to the face-to-face meeting. Everything at the congress was simultaneously available on streaming. That made us more confident in what we could achieve with a virtual meeting.”

Last year, the EASD meeting held in Barcelona was the first for which the number of virtual attendees equaled the number who attended in person, about 15,000 each. Another 80,000 people have accessed the video content in the year since.

“Maybe this is a unique occasion for reaching out to a really global audience,” said Del Prato, professor of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa School of Medicine, Italy.  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, PhD, the meeting’s program chair, told Medscape Medical News, “I’m really looking forward to this meeting because of the interactivity. I hope that, lacking the possibility of having a physical meeting, this is absolutely the best one can do.”
 

More cardiovascular and renal outcomes for SGLT2 inhibitors 

The impact of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class beyond glucose-lowering has dominated the agenda of diabetes meetings for the past 5 years, and this EASD is no exception.

Here, new data will be presented for the previously reported EMPEROR-Reduced trial of empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) for patients with heart failure with or without diabetes; DAPA-CKD, on renal outcomes for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca); and renal results from the VERTIS CV outcome trial of ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck).

Regarding DAPA-CKD, Del Prato noted, “We will have a greater opportunity ... to go deeper into the results during a 1-hour session.”

A related session, a joint EASD/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) symposium on the “dawn of cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes” will review the development of SGLT2 inhibitors and the data accumulated for the drug class over the past 5 years since the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was first reported at EASD in 2015.

The joint symposium, Rydénsaid, will be “extremely important for clinicians. It’s a revolution in type 2 diabetes treatment, and perhaps in those without diabetes who have heart failure...It’s not about a single company, but experts involved in all the different trials of the different SGLT2 inhibitors...We’re still seeing the huge impact that the SGLT2 inhibitors have made, and the incretins as well. We’re still living in these rumbling years after these huge trials.”

Del Prato also named that symposium as a meeting highlight.

“From a clinical point of view, I think the EMPA-REG 5-year session will be of great interest. That was really a turning point not only in the field of diabetes, but also in cardiology and nephrology. I think that will be a great opportunity to see how quickly and how importantly SGLT2 inhibition has turned into a great opportunity for many people.”
 

Who’s “right” – diabetologists or cardiologists?

Another session likely to draw a crowd of clinicians is a debate about which guidelines are “right”: the ESC’s, which advise first-line use of an SGLT2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist for patients with established CVD or those at high risk, or the more conservative EASD/American Diabetes Association’s, which still advise metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Rydén, who is professor and senior consultant in endocrinology at the Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Sweden, commented, “The difference is in how aggressive to be in treatment and when adding drugs...I think we have slightly different ways of seeing things and how we implement them.”

Del Prato noted, “We need to clear the fog about what are the current indications for people with diabetes. There is definitely a point of contact between cardiology and diabetology. ... We like to split [the disciplines] up, but discussion is a good way to get people thinking.”

“It will be very important to address the importance of glucose control but yet also leverage a new form of treatment that will have properties above and beyond glucose-lowering capacity.”
 

Other big trial results: CGM after MI, semaglutide for obesity

Other major new trial results to be presented in dedicated sessions include LIBERATES (Improving Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction: The Role of a Novel Glycaemic Monitoring), and STEP program (Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity).

LIBERATES will compare glycemic control with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day sensor and standard fingerstick glucose monitoring versus blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 90 days after a heart attack. It was a late addition to the meeting program, Rydén noted.

The semaglutide study is looking at weight loss associated with a higher dose of the GLP-1 agonist than is currently approved for diabetes, similar to the way in which liraglutide was developed as an obesity agent after first gaining approval for type 2 diabetes.

Regarding semaglutide, Rydén said, “I’ve heard this one is quite efficient. It will be interesting.”
 

Personalized medicine, COVID-19, intermittent fasting, and much more

Both Rydén and Del Prato also said they were looking forward to a joint EASD/American Diabetes Association symposium on a newly launched precision medicine initiative. The session will include talks on subclassifications of diabetes, genetics, and precision diabetes medicine in practice, as well as lessons on the latter from Greenland.

Rydén noted, “I think it’s interesting for everyone, from the primary healthcare physician to the basic scientist. We’re trying to understand why we have this huge diabetic panorama and how do we identify the subject who should have a specific treatment, or perhaps [will] develop a specific complication of diabetes.”

This field, he predicted, “will grow enormously in the next 10 years.”

Del Prato pointed out, “Diabetes is more heterogeneous than we tend to believe for both types. Better guidance for individualization of treatments could be a great opportunity. ... Ways to better genotype and phenotype the population are becoming less expensive and easier to access. It will be a different way to treat diabetes in the future.”

Other noteworthy conference sessions will address COVID-19 and diabetes, intermittent fasting, new technologies, diabetes and cancer, the role of liver surveillance in patients with diabetes, medicines that can cause diabetes, exercise in type 1 diabetes, and the burden of hypoglycemia.  

There will also be opportunities for networking, Del Prato said. “You’ll be able to walk around with your own avatar. You’ll be assisted by [artificial intelligence] to build your own program based on what you’ve been following. You can participate in discussion rooms. You can walk in and out.”

“We hope people will appreciate the science and the spirit of the congress – mingling, interacting, chatting to start discussion and maybe collaboration. It will be lots of fun. I would like to invite all Medscape readers to come and register.

Rydén has reported being a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Del Prato has reported being a speaker, advisory board member, and/or receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.

Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.

On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.

“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.

“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.

The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Limited evidence

Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.

However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.

In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.

“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.

The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.

The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.

Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.

“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.

In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.

A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.

Close monitoring required

An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.

Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.

For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).

There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.

The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).

The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)

The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.

“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.

“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.

She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.

Useful ‘real-world data’

William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”

Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”

The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

“As a pediatrician, I would find these results useful as I work with my patients, their families, and behavioral health colleagues in making important treatment decisions.”

The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.

Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.

On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.

“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.

“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.

The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Limited evidence

Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.

However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.

In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.

“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.

The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.

The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.

Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.

“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.

In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.

A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.

Close monitoring required

An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.

Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.

For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).

There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.

The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).

The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)

The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.

“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.

“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.

She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.

Useful ‘real-world data’

William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”

Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”

The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

“As a pediatrician, I would find these results useful as I work with my patients, their families, and behavioral health colleagues in making important treatment decisions.”

The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SSRIs are associated with a much lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in children and adolescents than previously reported, new research shows.

Investigators found publicly insured patients treated with SSRIs had a 13% increased risk for T2D, compared with those not treated with these agents. In addition, those taking SSRIs continuously (defined as receiving one or more prescriptions every 3 months) had a 33% increased risk of T2D.

On the other hand, privately insured youth had a much lower increased risk – a finding that may be attributable to a lower prevalence of risk factors for T2D in this group.

“We cannot exclude that children and adolescents treated with SSRIs may be at a small increased risk of developing T2D, particularly publicly insured patients, but the magnitude of association was weaker than previous thought and much smaller than other known risk factors for T2DM, such as obesity, race, and poverty,” lead investigator Jenny Sun, PhD, said in an interview.

“When weighing the known benefits and risks of SSRI treatment in children and adolescents, our findings provide reassurance that the risk of T2DM is not as substantial as initially reported,” said Dr. Sun, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.

The study was published online Sept. 2 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Limited evidence

Previous research suggested that SSRIs increase the risk of T2D by up to 90% in children and adolescents.

However, the investigators noted, the study reporting this finding was too small to draw conclusions about the SSRI class as a whole also did not examine specific SSRIs.

In addition, although “several studies have reported that antidepressant use may be a risk factor for T2D in adults, evidence was limited in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sun.

“Rapid changes in growth during childhood and adolescents can alter drugs’ pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, so high-quality, age-specific data are needed to inform prescribing decisions,” she said.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed claims data on almost 1.6 million patients aged 10-19 years (58.3% female; mean age, 15.1 years) from two large claims databases.

The analysis focused on those with a diagnosis warranting treatment with an SSRI, including depression, generalized or social anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder, or bulimia nervosa.

The Medicaid Analytic Extract database consisted of 316,178 patients insured through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The IBM MarketScan database consisted of 211,460 privately insured patients. Patients were followed up for a mean of 2.3 and 2.2 years, respectively.

Patients who initiated SSRI treatment were compared with those with a similar indication but who were not taking an SSRI. Secondary analyses compared new SSRI users with patients who recently initiated treatment with bupropion, which has no metabolic side effects, or with patients who recently initiated psychotherapy.

“In observational data, it is difficult to mimic a placebo group, often used in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials], therefore several comparator groups were explored to broaden our understanding,” said Dr. Sun.

In addition, the researchers compared the individual SSRI medications, using fluoxetine as a comparator.

A wide range of more than 100 potential confounders or “proxies of confounders,” were taken into account, including demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, metabolic conditions, concomitant medications, and use of health care services.

The researchers conducted two analyses. They included an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis that was restricted to patients with one or more additional SSRI prescriptions during the 6 months following the index exposure assessment period.

Close monitoring required

An as-treated analysis estimated the association of continuous SSRI treatment (vs. untreated, bupropion treatment, and psychotherapy), with adherence assessed at 3-month intervals.

Initiation and continuation of SSRI treatment in publicly insured patients were both associated with a considerably higher risk of T2D, compared with untreated patients, and a steeper risk, compared with their privately insured counterparts.

For newly treated publicly insured patients initiated on SSRI treatment, the ITT adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22).

There was an even stronger association among continuously treated publicly insured patients, with an as-treated aHR of 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21-1.47). The authors noted that this corresponds to 6.6 additional T2D cases per 10,000 patients continuously treated for at least 2 years.

The association was weaker in privately insured patients (ITT aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.23; as-treated aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.36).

The secondary analyses yielded similar findings: When SSRI treatment was compared with psychotherapy, the as-treated aHR for publicly insured patients was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.25-1.65), whereas the aHR for privately insured patients was lower at 1.21 (95% CI, 0.93-1.57)

The investigators found no increased risk when SSRIs were compared with bupropion, and the within-class analysis showed that none of the SSRIs carried an increased hazard of T2D, compared with fluoxetine.

“Publicly insured patients are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas privately insured patients are generally covered by their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance,” said Dr. Sun.

“Publicly insured patients are of lower socioeconomic status and represent a population with greater overall medical burden, more comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of risk factors for T2D, such as obesity, at the time of treatment initiation,” she said.

She added that high-risk children and youth should be closely monitored and clinicians should also consider recommending dietary modifications and increased exercise to offset T2D risk.

Useful ‘real-world data’

William Cooper, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said that the study “provides a fascinating look at risks of SSRI medications in children and adolescents.”

Dr. Cooper, who was not involved with the study, said that the authors “draw from real-world data representing two different populations and carefully consider factors which might confound the associations.”

The results, he said, “provide important benefits for patients, families, and clinicians as they weigh the risks and benefits of using SSRIs for children who need treatment for depression and anxiety disorders.

“As a pediatrician, I would find these results useful as I work with my patients, their families, and behavioral health colleagues in making important treatment decisions.”

The study was supported by a training grant from the program in pharmacoepidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sun disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cooper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, highlighting the latest COVID-19 developments on Friday, said, “It is now clear that about 40%-45% of infections are asymptomatic.”

NIH

Asymptomatic carriers can account for a large proportion — up to 50% — of virus transmissions, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a virtual crowd of critical care clinicians gathered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Such transmissions have made response strategies, such as contact tracing, extremely difficult, he said.

Lew Kaplan, MD, president of SCCM, told Medscape Medical News after the presentation: “That really supports the universal wearing of masks and the capstone message from that – you should protect one another.

“That kind of social responsibility that sits within the public health domain to me is as important as the vaccine candidates and the science behind the receptors. It underpins the necessary relationship and the interdependence of the medical community with the public,” Kaplan added.

Fauci’s plenary led the SCCM’s conference, “COVID-19: What’s Next/Preparing for the Second Wave,” running today and Saturday.
 

Why U.S. response lags behind Spain and Italy

“This virus has literally exploded upon the planet in a pandemic manner which is unparalleled to anything we’ve seen in the last 102 years since the pandemic of 1918,” Fauci said.

“Unfortunately, the United States has been hit harder than any other country in the world, with 6 million reported cases.”

He explained that in the European Union countries the disease spiked early on and returned to a low baseline. “Unfortunately for them,” Fauci said, “as they’re trying to open up their economy, it’s coming back up.”

The United States, he explained, plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day, then a surge of cases in Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona brought the cases to 70,000 a day. Now cases have returned to 35,000-40,000 a day.

The difference in the trajectory of the response, he said, is that, compared with Spain and Italy for example, the United States has not shut down mobility in parks, outdoor spaces, and grocery stores nearly as much as some European countries did.

He pointed to numerous clusters of cases, spread from social or work gatherings, including the well-known Skagit County Washington state choir practice in March, in which a symptomatic choir member infected 87% of the 61 people rehearsing.
 

Vaccine by end of the year

As for a vaccine timeline, Fauci told SCCM members, “We project that by the end of this year, namely November/December, we will know if we have a safe and effective vaccine and we are cautiously optimistic that we will be successful, based on promising data in the animal model as well as good immunological data that we see from the phase 1 and phase 2 trials.”

However, also on Friday, Fauci told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that a sense of normalcy is not likely before the middle of next year.

“By the time you mobilize the distribution of the vaccinations, and you get the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected, that’s likely not going to happen [until] the mid- or end of 2021,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case tracker, as of Thursday, COVID-19 had resulted in more than 190,000 deaths overall and more than 256,000 new cases in the United States in the past 7 days.

Fauci has warned that the next few months will be critical in the virus’ trajectory, with the double onslaught of COVID-19 and the flu season.

On Thursday, Fauci said, “We need to hunker down and get through this fall and winter because it’s not going to be easy.”

Fauci remains a top trusted source in COVID-19 information, poll numbers show.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 68% of US adults had a fair amount or a great deal of trust that Fauci would provide reliable information on COVID-19, just slightly more that the 67% who said they trust the CDC information. About half (53%) say they trust Deborah Birx, MD, the coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, as a reliable source of information.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans said they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if one was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before the November election and was made available and free to all who wanted it.

Kaplan and Fauci report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anthony Fauci, MD, highlighting the latest COVID-19 developments on Friday, said, “It is now clear that about 40%-45% of infections are asymptomatic.”

NIH

Asymptomatic carriers can account for a large proportion — up to 50% — of virus transmissions, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a virtual crowd of critical care clinicians gathered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Such transmissions have made response strategies, such as contact tracing, extremely difficult, he said.

Lew Kaplan, MD, president of SCCM, told Medscape Medical News after the presentation: “That really supports the universal wearing of masks and the capstone message from that – you should protect one another.

“That kind of social responsibility that sits within the public health domain to me is as important as the vaccine candidates and the science behind the receptors. It underpins the necessary relationship and the interdependence of the medical community with the public,” Kaplan added.

Fauci’s plenary led the SCCM’s conference, “COVID-19: What’s Next/Preparing for the Second Wave,” running today and Saturday.
 

Why U.S. response lags behind Spain and Italy

“This virus has literally exploded upon the planet in a pandemic manner which is unparalleled to anything we’ve seen in the last 102 years since the pandemic of 1918,” Fauci said.

“Unfortunately, the United States has been hit harder than any other country in the world, with 6 million reported cases.”

He explained that in the European Union countries the disease spiked early on and returned to a low baseline. “Unfortunately for them,” Fauci said, “as they’re trying to open up their economy, it’s coming back up.”

The United States, he explained, plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day, then a surge of cases in Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona brought the cases to 70,000 a day. Now cases have returned to 35,000-40,000 a day.

The difference in the trajectory of the response, he said, is that, compared with Spain and Italy for example, the United States has not shut down mobility in parks, outdoor spaces, and grocery stores nearly as much as some European countries did.

He pointed to numerous clusters of cases, spread from social or work gatherings, including the well-known Skagit County Washington state choir practice in March, in which a symptomatic choir member infected 87% of the 61 people rehearsing.
 

Vaccine by end of the year

As for a vaccine timeline, Fauci told SCCM members, “We project that by the end of this year, namely November/December, we will know if we have a safe and effective vaccine and we are cautiously optimistic that we will be successful, based on promising data in the animal model as well as good immunological data that we see from the phase 1 and phase 2 trials.”

However, also on Friday, Fauci told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that a sense of normalcy is not likely before the middle of next year.

“By the time you mobilize the distribution of the vaccinations, and you get the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected, that’s likely not going to happen [until] the mid- or end of 2021,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case tracker, as of Thursday, COVID-19 had resulted in more than 190,000 deaths overall and more than 256,000 new cases in the United States in the past 7 days.

Fauci has warned that the next few months will be critical in the virus’ trajectory, with the double onslaught of COVID-19 and the flu season.

On Thursday, Fauci said, “We need to hunker down and get through this fall and winter because it’s not going to be easy.”

Fauci remains a top trusted source in COVID-19 information, poll numbers show.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 68% of US adults had a fair amount or a great deal of trust that Fauci would provide reliable information on COVID-19, just slightly more that the 67% who said they trust the CDC information. About half (53%) say they trust Deborah Birx, MD, the coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, as a reliable source of information.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans said they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if one was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before the November election and was made available and free to all who wanted it.

Kaplan and Fauci report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anthony Fauci, MD, highlighting the latest COVID-19 developments on Friday, said, “It is now clear that about 40%-45% of infections are asymptomatic.”

NIH

Asymptomatic carriers can account for a large proportion — up to 50% — of virus transmissions, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a virtual crowd of critical care clinicians gathered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Such transmissions have made response strategies, such as contact tracing, extremely difficult, he said.

Lew Kaplan, MD, president of SCCM, told Medscape Medical News after the presentation: “That really supports the universal wearing of masks and the capstone message from that – you should protect one another.

“That kind of social responsibility that sits within the public health domain to me is as important as the vaccine candidates and the science behind the receptors. It underpins the necessary relationship and the interdependence of the medical community with the public,” Kaplan added.

Fauci’s plenary led the SCCM’s conference, “COVID-19: What’s Next/Preparing for the Second Wave,” running today and Saturday.
 

Why U.S. response lags behind Spain and Italy

“This virus has literally exploded upon the planet in a pandemic manner which is unparalleled to anything we’ve seen in the last 102 years since the pandemic of 1918,” Fauci said.

“Unfortunately, the United States has been hit harder than any other country in the world, with 6 million reported cases.”

He explained that in the European Union countries the disease spiked early on and returned to a low baseline. “Unfortunately for them,” Fauci said, “as they’re trying to open up their economy, it’s coming back up.”

The United States, he explained, plateaued at about 20,000 cases a day, then a surge of cases in Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona brought the cases to 70,000 a day. Now cases have returned to 35,000-40,000 a day.

The difference in the trajectory of the response, he said, is that, compared with Spain and Italy for example, the United States has not shut down mobility in parks, outdoor spaces, and grocery stores nearly as much as some European countries did.

He pointed to numerous clusters of cases, spread from social or work gatherings, including the well-known Skagit County Washington state choir practice in March, in which a symptomatic choir member infected 87% of the 61 people rehearsing.
 

Vaccine by end of the year

As for a vaccine timeline, Fauci told SCCM members, “We project that by the end of this year, namely November/December, we will know if we have a safe and effective vaccine and we are cautiously optimistic that we will be successful, based on promising data in the animal model as well as good immunological data that we see from the phase 1 and phase 2 trials.”

However, also on Friday, Fauci told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that a sense of normalcy is not likely before the middle of next year.

“By the time you mobilize the distribution of the vaccinations, and you get the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected, that’s likely not going to happen [until] the mid- or end of 2021,” he said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case tracker, as of Thursday, COVID-19 had resulted in more than 190,000 deaths overall and more than 256,000 new cases in the United States in the past 7 days.

Fauci has warned that the next few months will be critical in the virus’ trajectory, with the double onslaught of COVID-19 and the flu season.

On Thursday, Fauci said, “We need to hunker down and get through this fall and winter because it’s not going to be easy.”

Fauci remains a top trusted source in COVID-19 information, poll numbers show.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 68% of US adults had a fair amount or a great deal of trust that Fauci would provide reliable information on COVID-19, just slightly more that the 67% who said they trust the CDC information. About half (53%) say they trust Deborah Birx, MD, the coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, as a reliable source of information.

The poll also found that 54% of Americans said they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if one was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before the November election and was made available and free to all who wanted it.

Kaplan and Fauci report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.