MDedge Endocrinology

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people can cope, to some degree, with the multiple weeks of social distancing and stressors related to the pandemic. But what if those stressors became a way of life for a year – or longer? What sorts of skills would be essential not only to survive but to have a renewed sense of resilience?

I know of one group that has had experiences that mirror the challenges faced by the parents of children: the parents of special needs children. As I argued previously, those parents have faced many of the challenges presented by COVID-19. Among those challenges are social distancing and difficulty accessing everyday common experiences. These parents know that they have to manage more areas of their children’s rearing than do their counterparts.

In addition to having to plan for how to deal with acute urgent or emergent medical situations involving their special needs children, these parents also must prepare for the long-term effects of managing children who require ongoing daily care, attention, and dedication.

As psychiatrists, we can teach patients several strategies that can serve as basic building blocks. These strategies can help the parents of special needs kids find a sense of mastery and comfort. The hope is that, after practicing them for long periods of time, the strategies become second nature.

Here are several strategies that might help patients with children during this pandemic:

• Take time to reset: Sometimes it is helpful for parents to take a minute away from a difficult impasse with their kids to reset and take their own “time out.” A few seconds of mental time away from the “scene” provides space and a mental reminder that the minute that just happened is finite, and that a whole new one is coming up next. The break provides a sense of hope. This cognitive reframing could be practiced often.
• Re-enter the challenging scene with a warm voice: Parents model for their children, but they also are telling their own brains that they, too, can calm down. This approach also de-escalates the situation and allows children to get used to hearing directions from someone who is in control – without hostility or irritability.
• Keep a sense of humor; it might come in handy: This is especially the case when tension is in the home, or when facing a set of challenging bad news. As an example, consider how some situations are so repetitive that they border on the ridiculous – such as a grown child having a tantrum at a store. Encourage the children to give themselves permission to cry first so they can laugh second, and then move on.
• Establish a routine for children that is self-reinforcing, and allows for together and separate times: They can, as an example: A) Get ready for the day all by themselves, or as much as they can do independently, before they come down and then B) have breakfast. Then, the child can C) do homework, and then D) go play outside. The routine would then continue on its own without outside reinforcers.
• Tell the children that they can get to the reinforcing activity only after completing the previous one. Over time, they learn to take pride in completing the first activity and doing so more independently. Not having to wait to be told what to do all the time fosters a sense of independence.
• Plan for meals and fun tasks together, and separate for individual work. This creates a sense of change and gives the day a certain flow. Establish routines that are predictable for the children that can be easily documented for the whole family on a calendar. Establish a beginning and an end time to the work day. Mark the end of the day with a chalk line establishing when the family can engage in a certain activity, for example, going for a family bike ride. Let the routine honor healthy circadian rhythms for sleep/wakeful times, and be consistent.
• Feed the brain and body the “good stuff”: Limit negative news, and surround the children with people who bring them joy or provide hope. Listen to inspirational messages and uplifting music. Give the children food that nourishes and energizes their bodies. Take in the view outside, the greenery, or the sky if there is no green around. Connect with family/friends who are far away.
• Make time to replenish with something that is meaningful/productive/helpful: Parents have very little time for themselves when they are “on,” so when they can actually take a little time to recharge, the activity should check many boxes. For example, encourage them to go for a walk (exercise) while listening to music (relax), make a phone call to someone who can relate to their situation (socialize), pray with someone (be spiritual), or sit in their rooms to get some alone quiet time (meditate). Reach out to those who are lonely. Network. Mentor. Volunteer.
• Develop an eye for noticing the positive: Instead of hoping for things to go back to the way they were, tell your patients to practice embracing without judgment the new norm. Get them to notice the time they spend with their families. Break all tasks into many smaller tasks, so there is more possibility of observing progress, and it is evident for everyone to see. Learn to notice the small changes that they want to see in their children. Celebrate all that can be celebrated by stating the obvious: “You wiped your face after eating. You are observant; you are noticing when you have something on your face.”
• State when a child is forgiving, helpful, or puts forward some effort. Label the growth witnessed. The child will learn that that is who they are over time (“observant”). Verbalizing these behaviors also will provide patients with a sense of mastery over parenting, because they are driving the emotional and behavioral development of their children in a way that also complements their family values.
• Make everyone in the family a contributor and foster a sense of gratitude: Give everyone a reason to claim that their collaboration and effort are a big part of the plan’s success. Take turns to lessen everyone’s burden and to thank them for their contributions. Older children can take on leadership roles, even in small ways. Younger children can practice being good listeners, following directions, and helping. Reverse the roles when possible.

Special needs families sometimes have to work harder than others to overcome obstacles, grow, and learn to support one another. Since the pandemic, many parents have been just as challenged. Mastering the above skills might provide a sense of fulfillment and agency, as well as an appreciation for the unexpected gifts that special children – and all children – have to offer.
 

Dr. Sotir is a psychiatrist with a private practice in Wheaton, Ill. As a parent of three children, one with special needs, she has extensive experience helping parents challenged by having special needs children find balance, support, direction, and joy in all dimensions of individual and family life. This area is the focus of her practice and public speaking. She has no disclosures.

Most people can cope, to some degree, with the multiple weeks of social distancing and stressors related to the pandemic. But what if those stressors became a way of life for a year – or longer? What sorts of skills would be essential not only to survive but to have a renewed sense of resilience?

I know of one group that has had experiences that mirror the challenges faced by the parents of children: the parents of special needs children. As I argued previously, those parents have faced many of the challenges presented by COVID-19. Among those challenges are social distancing and difficulty accessing everyday common experiences. These parents know that they have to manage more areas of their children’s rearing than do their counterparts.

In addition to having to plan for how to deal with acute urgent or emergent medical situations involving their special needs children, these parents also must prepare for the long-term effects of managing children who require ongoing daily care, attention, and dedication.

As psychiatrists, we can teach patients several strategies that can serve as basic building blocks. These strategies can help the parents of special needs kids find a sense of mastery and comfort. The hope is that, after practicing them for long periods of time, the strategies become second nature.

Here are several strategies that might help patients with children during this pandemic:

• Take time to reset: Sometimes it is helpful for parents to take a minute away from a difficult impasse with their kids to reset and take their own “time out.” A few seconds of mental time away from the “scene” provides space and a mental reminder that the minute that just happened is finite, and that a whole new one is coming up next. The break provides a sense of hope. This cognitive reframing could be practiced often.
• Re-enter the challenging scene with a warm voice: Parents model for their children, but they also are telling their own brains that they, too, can calm down. This approach also de-escalates the situation and allows children to get used to hearing directions from someone who is in control – without hostility or irritability.
• Keep a sense of humor; it might come in handy: This is especially the case when tension is in the home, or when facing a set of challenging bad news. As an example, consider how some situations are so repetitive that they border on the ridiculous – such as a grown child having a tantrum at a store. Encourage the children to give themselves permission to cry first so they can laugh second, and then move on.
• Establish a routine for children that is self-reinforcing, and allows for together and separate times: They can, as an example: A) Get ready for the day all by themselves, or as much as they can do independently, before they come down and then B) have breakfast. Then, the child can C) do homework, and then D) go play outside. The routine would then continue on its own without outside reinforcers.
• Tell the children that they can get to the reinforcing activity only after completing the previous one. Over time, they learn to take pride in completing the first activity and doing so more independently. Not having to wait to be told what to do all the time fosters a sense of independence.
• Plan for meals and fun tasks together, and separate for individual work. This creates a sense of change and gives the day a certain flow. Establish routines that are predictable for the children that can be easily documented for the whole family on a calendar. Establish a beginning and an end time to the work day. Mark the end of the day with a chalk line establishing when the family can engage in a certain activity, for example, going for a family bike ride. Let the routine honor healthy circadian rhythms for sleep/wakeful times, and be consistent.
• Feed the brain and body the “good stuff”: Limit negative news, and surround the children with people who bring them joy or provide hope. Listen to inspirational messages and uplifting music. Give the children food that nourishes and energizes their bodies. Take in the view outside, the greenery, or the sky if there is no green around. Connect with family/friends who are far away.
• Make time to replenish with something that is meaningful/productive/helpful: Parents have very little time for themselves when they are “on,” so when they can actually take a little time to recharge, the activity should check many boxes. For example, encourage them to go for a walk (exercise) while listening to music (relax), make a phone call to someone who can relate to their situation (socialize), pray with someone (be spiritual), or sit in their rooms to get some alone quiet time (meditate). Reach out to those who are lonely. Network. Mentor. Volunteer.
• Develop an eye for noticing the positive: Instead of hoping for things to go back to the way they were, tell your patients to practice embracing without judgment the new norm. Get them to notice the time they spend with their families. Break all tasks into many smaller tasks, so there is more possibility of observing progress, and it is evident for everyone to see. Learn to notice the small changes that they want to see in their children. Celebrate all that can be celebrated by stating the obvious: “You wiped your face after eating. You are observant; you are noticing when you have something on your face.”
• State when a child is forgiving, helpful, or puts forward some effort. Label the growth witnessed. The child will learn that that is who they are over time (“observant”). Verbalizing these behaviors also will provide patients with a sense of mastery over parenting, because they are driving the emotional and behavioral development of their children in a way that also complements their family values.
• Make everyone in the family a contributor and foster a sense of gratitude: Give everyone a reason to claim that their collaboration and effort are a big part of the plan’s success. Take turns to lessen everyone’s burden and to thank them for their contributions. Older children can take on leadership roles, even in small ways. Younger children can practice being good listeners, following directions, and helping. Reverse the roles when possible.

Special needs families sometimes have to work harder than others to overcome obstacles, grow, and learn to support one another. Since the pandemic, many parents have been just as challenged. Mastering the above skills might provide a sense of fulfillment and agency, as well as an appreciation for the unexpected gifts that special children – and all children – have to offer.
 

Dr. Sotir is a psychiatrist with a private practice in Wheaton, Ill. As a parent of three children, one with special needs, she has extensive experience helping parents challenged by having special needs children find balance, support, direction, and joy in all dimensions of individual and family life. This area is the focus of her practice and public speaking. She has no disclosures.

Most people can cope, to some degree, with the multiple weeks of social distancing and stressors related to the pandemic. But what if those stressors became a way of life for a year – or longer? What sorts of skills would be essential not only to survive but to have a renewed sense of resilience?

I know of one group that has had experiences that mirror the challenges faced by the parents of children: the parents of special needs children. As I argued previously, those parents have faced many of the challenges presented by COVID-19. Among those challenges are social distancing and difficulty accessing everyday common experiences. These parents know that they have to manage more areas of their children’s rearing than do their counterparts.

In addition to having to plan for how to deal with acute urgent or emergent medical situations involving their special needs children, these parents also must prepare for the long-term effects of managing children who require ongoing daily care, attention, and dedication.

As psychiatrists, we can teach patients several strategies that can serve as basic building blocks. These strategies can help the parents of special needs kids find a sense of mastery and comfort. The hope is that, after practicing them for long periods of time, the strategies become second nature.

Here are several strategies that might help patients with children during this pandemic:

• Take time to reset: Sometimes it is helpful for parents to take a minute away from a difficult impasse with their kids to reset and take their own “time out.” A few seconds of mental time away from the “scene” provides space and a mental reminder that the minute that just happened is finite, and that a whole new one is coming up next. The break provides a sense of hope. This cognitive reframing could be practiced often.
• Re-enter the challenging scene with a warm voice: Parents model for their children, but they also are telling their own brains that they, too, can calm down. This approach also de-escalates the situation and allows children to get used to hearing directions from someone who is in control – without hostility or irritability.
• Keep a sense of humor; it might come in handy: This is especially the case when tension is in the home, or when facing a set of challenging bad news. As an example, consider how some situations are so repetitive that they border on the ridiculous – such as a grown child having a tantrum at a store. Encourage the children to give themselves permission to cry first so they can laugh second, and then move on.
• Establish a routine for children that is self-reinforcing, and allows for together and separate times: They can, as an example: A) Get ready for the day all by themselves, or as much as they can do independently, before they come down and then B) have breakfast. Then, the child can C) do homework, and then D) go play outside. The routine would then continue on its own without outside reinforcers.
• Tell the children that they can get to the reinforcing activity only after completing the previous one. Over time, they learn to take pride in completing the first activity and doing so more independently. Not having to wait to be told what to do all the time fosters a sense of independence.
• Plan for meals and fun tasks together, and separate for individual work. This creates a sense of change and gives the day a certain flow. Establish routines that are predictable for the children that can be easily documented for the whole family on a calendar. Establish a beginning and an end time to the work day. Mark the end of the day with a chalk line establishing when the family can engage in a certain activity, for example, going for a family bike ride. Let the routine honor healthy circadian rhythms for sleep/wakeful times, and be consistent.
• Feed the brain and body the “good stuff”: Limit negative news, and surround the children with people who bring them joy or provide hope. Listen to inspirational messages and uplifting music. Give the children food that nourishes and energizes their bodies. Take in the view outside, the greenery, or the sky if there is no green around. Connect with family/friends who are far away.
• Make time to replenish with something that is meaningful/productive/helpful: Parents have very little time for themselves when they are “on,” so when they can actually take a little time to recharge, the activity should check many boxes. For example, encourage them to go for a walk (exercise) while listening to music (relax), make a phone call to someone who can relate to their situation (socialize), pray with someone (be spiritual), or sit in their rooms to get some alone quiet time (meditate). Reach out to those who are lonely. Network. Mentor. Volunteer.
• Develop an eye for noticing the positive: Instead of hoping for things to go back to the way they were, tell your patients to practice embracing without judgment the new norm. Get them to notice the time they spend with their families. Break all tasks into many smaller tasks, so there is more possibility of observing progress, and it is evident for everyone to see. Learn to notice the small changes that they want to see in their children. Celebrate all that can be celebrated by stating the obvious: “You wiped your face after eating. You are observant; you are noticing when you have something on your face.”
• State when a child is forgiving, helpful, or puts forward some effort. Label the growth witnessed. The child will learn that that is who they are over time (“observant”). Verbalizing these behaviors also will provide patients with a sense of mastery over parenting, because they are driving the emotional and behavioral development of their children in a way that also complements their family values.
• Make everyone in the family a contributor and foster a sense of gratitude: Give everyone a reason to claim that their collaboration and effort are a big part of the plan’s success. Take turns to lessen everyone’s burden and to thank them for their contributions. Older children can take on leadership roles, even in small ways. Younger children can practice being good listeners, following directions, and helping. Reverse the roles when possible.

Special needs families sometimes have to work harder than others to overcome obstacles, grow, and learn to support one another. Since the pandemic, many parents have been just as challenged. Mastering the above skills might provide a sense of fulfillment and agency, as well as an appreciation for the unexpected gifts that special children – and all children – have to offer.
 

Dr. Sotir is a psychiatrist with a private practice in Wheaton, Ill. As a parent of three children, one with special needs, she has extensive experience helping parents challenged by having special needs children find balance, support, direction, and joy in all dimensions of individual and family life. This area is the focus of her practice and public speaking. She has no disclosures.

A recently approved first-in-class antipsychotic appears to have fewer adverse cardiometabolic effects than standard care with risperidone, new research suggests.

In post hoc analyses of two short-term randomized controlled trials plus an open-label long-term study, patients with schizophrenia on lumateperone (Caplyta, Intra-Cellular Therapies) had reduced rates of metabolic syndrome, compared with their counterparts taking placebo or the antipsychotic risperidone.

In the short-term studies, rates of metabolic syndrome were similar between groups at baseline, but by the end of 4 and 6 weeks of treatment, 25% of patients taking lumateperone no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome. A similar finding occurred in 36% of patients in the 1-year open label study.

“One of the major advantages that we found during the drug’s development was that it has a very favorable profile with regard to changes in weight, and other [parameters] associated with cardiovascular disease risk, such as elevated glucose and lipids,” study investigator Andrew Satlin, MD, chief medical officer at Intra-Cellular Therapies, New York, told this news organization.

“So we went back to our data and looked to see whether the changes that we saw had an impact on either the development or the resolution of metabolic syndrome in the patients who came into our studies,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 Virtual Conference.
 

Reduced cholesterol

Lumateperone was approved in December by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug acts synergistically through the serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic systems.

The short-term studies included 511 patients randomly assigned to receive lumateperone 42 mg (n = 256 patients) or risperidone 4 mg (n = 255 patients).

At baseline, rates of metabolic syndrome were 16% in the lumateperone group and 19% in the risperidone group. At the end of treatment, metabolic syndrome was less common in the lumateperone group (13%) vs. those receiving risperidone (25%).

In addition, 46% of lumateperone patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline no longer had it at the end of the study period. This compared with 25% of patients on risperidone.

More patients taking risperidone than on lumateperone developed metabolic syndrome during treatment (13% vs. 5%).

The differences in metabolic syndrome conversion rates appeared to be driven by greater reductions in total cholesterol with lumateperone, compared with risperidone (­–2.8 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 4.8 mg/dL with risperidone) and triglycerides (–0.7 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 20.4 mg/dL with risperidone).

Greater increases in blood glucose were also seen with risperidone (7.7 mg/dL) than with lumateperone (0.9 mg/dL).

The long-term study included 602 patients with stable schizophrenia. All received lumateperone 42 mg, and 197 patients (33%) had metabolic syndrome at baseline.

At the end of the 1-year study, 72 of these patients (36%) no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
 

“Safest antipsychotic so far”

“Lumateperone seems to be the safest antipsychotic we have seen so far,” Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charité Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, who was also involved in clinical trials of lumateperone, told this news organization.

“It seems to be very safe when it comes to cardiometabolic parameters, and it shows similar reduction in symptoms as risperidone. It is certainly an agent one should consider, particularly when a patient cannot tolerate other medications or may not be in full adherence,” said Dr. Correll, who has a joint appointment as professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

The drug’s safety and efficacy profile would make it a good candidate in patients initiating antipsychotic treatment, but reimbursement issues may be a barrier, at least for now, he added.

He said that the drug may prevent the onset of metabolic side effects and added that once payers are willing to reimburse the drug it should become the “first-line standard of care.”

It is well known that atypical antipsychotics are associated with adverse and rapid metabolic changes. Dr. Correll noted that particularly early-phase and first-episode patients can be “very sensitive” to the side effects of these drugs and often experience rapid weight gain and other adverse metabolic changes. Lumateperone, he added, may help avoid some of this cardiometabolic risk.
 

Time will tell

Jessica M. Gannon, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh said in commenting on the findings that the drug’s favorable metabolic profile has previously been reported.

She also noted that there has been some interest in lumateperone because of possible “downstream effects on NMDA-type glutamate receptor activity, a larger binding ratio at dopamine-2:5HT1A receptors than other atypical antipsychotics, and presynaptic D2 partial agonism and a postsynaptic D2 antagonism.”

“This latter feature may explain the reported low extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the clinical trials,” she said .

“While I think future studies and clinical use can help determine how clinically efficacious this medication will be for our patients when compared to others on the market, its favorable metabolic and EPS profile do make it of interest,” added Gannon, who was not involved in researching the drug.

The study was funded by Intra-Cellular Therapies. Dr. Satlin is chief medical officer of Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to and has received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

A recently approved first-in-class antipsychotic appears to have fewer adverse cardiometabolic effects than standard care with risperidone, new research suggests.

In post hoc analyses of two short-term randomized controlled trials plus an open-label long-term study, patients with schizophrenia on lumateperone (Caplyta, Intra-Cellular Therapies) had reduced rates of metabolic syndrome, compared with their counterparts taking placebo or the antipsychotic risperidone.

In the short-term studies, rates of metabolic syndrome were similar between groups at baseline, but by the end of 4 and 6 weeks of treatment, 25% of patients taking lumateperone no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome. A similar finding occurred in 36% of patients in the 1-year open label study.

“One of the major advantages that we found during the drug’s development was that it has a very favorable profile with regard to changes in weight, and other [parameters] associated with cardiovascular disease risk, such as elevated glucose and lipids,” study investigator Andrew Satlin, MD, chief medical officer at Intra-Cellular Therapies, New York, told this news organization.

“So we went back to our data and looked to see whether the changes that we saw had an impact on either the development or the resolution of metabolic syndrome in the patients who came into our studies,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 Virtual Conference.
 

Reduced cholesterol

Lumateperone was approved in December by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug acts synergistically through the serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic systems.

The short-term studies included 511 patients randomly assigned to receive lumateperone 42 mg (n = 256 patients) or risperidone 4 mg (n = 255 patients).

At baseline, rates of metabolic syndrome were 16% in the lumateperone group and 19% in the risperidone group. At the end of treatment, metabolic syndrome was less common in the lumateperone group (13%) vs. those receiving risperidone (25%).

In addition, 46% of lumateperone patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline no longer had it at the end of the study period. This compared with 25% of patients on risperidone.

More patients taking risperidone than on lumateperone developed metabolic syndrome during treatment (13% vs. 5%).

The differences in metabolic syndrome conversion rates appeared to be driven by greater reductions in total cholesterol with lumateperone, compared with risperidone (­–2.8 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 4.8 mg/dL with risperidone) and triglycerides (–0.7 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 20.4 mg/dL with risperidone).

Greater increases in blood glucose were also seen with risperidone (7.7 mg/dL) than with lumateperone (0.9 mg/dL).

The long-term study included 602 patients with stable schizophrenia. All received lumateperone 42 mg, and 197 patients (33%) had metabolic syndrome at baseline.

At the end of the 1-year study, 72 of these patients (36%) no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
 

“Safest antipsychotic so far”

“Lumateperone seems to be the safest antipsychotic we have seen so far,” Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charité Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, who was also involved in clinical trials of lumateperone, told this news organization.

“It seems to be very safe when it comes to cardiometabolic parameters, and it shows similar reduction in symptoms as risperidone. It is certainly an agent one should consider, particularly when a patient cannot tolerate other medications or may not be in full adherence,” said Dr. Correll, who has a joint appointment as professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

The drug’s safety and efficacy profile would make it a good candidate in patients initiating antipsychotic treatment, but reimbursement issues may be a barrier, at least for now, he added.

He said that the drug may prevent the onset of metabolic side effects and added that once payers are willing to reimburse the drug it should become the “first-line standard of care.”

It is well known that atypical antipsychotics are associated with adverse and rapid metabolic changes. Dr. Correll noted that particularly early-phase and first-episode patients can be “very sensitive” to the side effects of these drugs and often experience rapid weight gain and other adverse metabolic changes. Lumateperone, he added, may help avoid some of this cardiometabolic risk.
 

Time will tell

Jessica M. Gannon, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh said in commenting on the findings that the drug’s favorable metabolic profile has previously been reported.

She also noted that there has been some interest in lumateperone because of possible “downstream effects on NMDA-type glutamate receptor activity, a larger binding ratio at dopamine-2:5HT1A receptors than other atypical antipsychotics, and presynaptic D2 partial agonism and a postsynaptic D2 antagonism.”

“This latter feature may explain the reported low extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the clinical trials,” she said .

“While I think future studies and clinical use can help determine how clinically efficacious this medication will be for our patients when compared to others on the market, its favorable metabolic and EPS profile do make it of interest,” added Gannon, who was not involved in researching the drug.

The study was funded by Intra-Cellular Therapies. Dr. Satlin is chief medical officer of Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to and has received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

A recently approved first-in-class antipsychotic appears to have fewer adverse cardiometabolic effects than standard care with risperidone, new research suggests.

In post hoc analyses of two short-term randomized controlled trials plus an open-label long-term study, patients with schizophrenia on lumateperone (Caplyta, Intra-Cellular Therapies) had reduced rates of metabolic syndrome, compared with their counterparts taking placebo or the antipsychotic risperidone.

In the short-term studies, rates of metabolic syndrome were similar between groups at baseline, but by the end of 4 and 6 weeks of treatment, 25% of patients taking lumateperone no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome. A similar finding occurred in 36% of patients in the 1-year open label study.

“One of the major advantages that we found during the drug’s development was that it has a very favorable profile with regard to changes in weight, and other [parameters] associated with cardiovascular disease risk, such as elevated glucose and lipids,” study investigator Andrew Satlin, MD, chief medical officer at Intra-Cellular Therapies, New York, told this news organization.

“So we went back to our data and looked to see whether the changes that we saw had an impact on either the development or the resolution of metabolic syndrome in the patients who came into our studies,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 Virtual Conference.
 

Reduced cholesterol

Lumateperone was approved in December by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug acts synergistically through the serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic systems.

The short-term studies included 511 patients randomly assigned to receive lumateperone 42 mg (n = 256 patients) or risperidone 4 mg (n = 255 patients).

At baseline, rates of metabolic syndrome were 16% in the lumateperone group and 19% in the risperidone group. At the end of treatment, metabolic syndrome was less common in the lumateperone group (13%) vs. those receiving risperidone (25%).

In addition, 46% of lumateperone patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline no longer had it at the end of the study period. This compared with 25% of patients on risperidone.

More patients taking risperidone than on lumateperone developed metabolic syndrome during treatment (13% vs. 5%).

The differences in metabolic syndrome conversion rates appeared to be driven by greater reductions in total cholesterol with lumateperone, compared with risperidone (­–2.8 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 4.8 mg/dL with risperidone) and triglycerides (–0.7 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 20.4 mg/dL with risperidone).

Greater increases in blood glucose were also seen with risperidone (7.7 mg/dL) than with lumateperone (0.9 mg/dL).

The long-term study included 602 patients with stable schizophrenia. All received lumateperone 42 mg, and 197 patients (33%) had metabolic syndrome at baseline.

At the end of the 1-year study, 72 of these patients (36%) no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
 

“Safest antipsychotic so far”

“Lumateperone seems to be the safest antipsychotic we have seen so far,” Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charité Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, who was also involved in clinical trials of lumateperone, told this news organization.

“It seems to be very safe when it comes to cardiometabolic parameters, and it shows similar reduction in symptoms as risperidone. It is certainly an agent one should consider, particularly when a patient cannot tolerate other medications or may not be in full adherence,” said Dr. Correll, who has a joint appointment as professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

The drug’s safety and efficacy profile would make it a good candidate in patients initiating antipsychotic treatment, but reimbursement issues may be a barrier, at least for now, he added.

He said that the drug may prevent the onset of metabolic side effects and added that once payers are willing to reimburse the drug it should become the “first-line standard of care.”

It is well known that atypical antipsychotics are associated with adverse and rapid metabolic changes. Dr. Correll noted that particularly early-phase and first-episode patients can be “very sensitive” to the side effects of these drugs and often experience rapid weight gain and other adverse metabolic changes. Lumateperone, he added, may help avoid some of this cardiometabolic risk.
 

Time will tell

Jessica M. Gannon, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh said in commenting on the findings that the drug’s favorable metabolic profile has previously been reported.

She also noted that there has been some interest in lumateperone because of possible “downstream effects on NMDA-type glutamate receptor activity, a larger binding ratio at dopamine-2:5HT1A receptors than other atypical antipsychotics, and presynaptic D2 partial agonism and a postsynaptic D2 antagonism.”

“This latter feature may explain the reported low extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the clinical trials,” she said .

“While I think future studies and clinical use can help determine how clinically efficacious this medication will be for our patients when compared to others on the market, its favorable metabolic and EPS profile do make it of interest,” added Gannon, who was not involved in researching the drug.

The study was funded by Intra-Cellular Therapies. Dr. Satlin is chief medical officer of Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to and has received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

More fatalities in heart transplant patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 infection appears to be associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant recipients. The conclusion is based on a case series with 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a heart transplant during March and April 2020. There was a case-fatality rate of 25%, according to the study published in JAMA Cardiology. “The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview. “These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection.” Read more.

High costs for type 1 diabetes patients: It’s not just insulin

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket costs – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – are still very high. Two separate research letters recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine examined some of the drivers behind these high costs. The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year. “Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” said the lead author of the first research letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Read more.

Most rheumatology drugs don’t up COVID-19 hospitalizations

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests. Researchers looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. Treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily – considered a moderate to high dose – was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization, however. “These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.” Read more.

A bumpy virtual #ASCO20

Some prominent oncologists gave up on the virtual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology after facing technical problems with online sessions. Despite those glitches, dozens of virtual meeting attendees praised the online effort, which was assembled in just a few months, and called out virtues such as the quick availability of video transcripts as well as the obvious benefits of low cost, zero travel, and overall convenience. But one sentiment was nearly universal: there’s nothing like the real thing. This year’s meeting, which involved 40,000-plus attendees, was shortened to 3 days and limited to scientific presentations because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Education sessions will be held online August 8-10. Read more.

Parenting special needs children: An unlikely model

As families adjust to daily life during a pandemic, the parents of special needs children may be able to offer them some lessons. The chronic struggles of many special needs parents – from staying home often to taking on roles in which they have not been trained – strongly resemble the challenges facing most families in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Migdalia Miranda Sotir, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Wheaton, Ill. “Parents may take on active roles supplementing their developmentally delayed children with educational experiences or therapeutic modalities in their own homes given that the needs might be too great to just rely on the school or therapy time,” she writes on MDedge. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

More fatalities in heart transplant patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 infection appears to be associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant recipients. The conclusion is based on a case series with 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a heart transplant during March and April 2020. There was a case-fatality rate of 25%, according to the study published in JAMA Cardiology. “The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview. “These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection.” Read more.

High costs for type 1 diabetes patients: It’s not just insulin

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket costs – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – are still very high. Two separate research letters recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine examined some of the drivers behind these high costs. The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year. “Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” said the lead author of the first research letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Read more.

Most rheumatology drugs don’t up COVID-19 hospitalizations

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests. Researchers looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. Treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily – considered a moderate to high dose – was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization, however. “These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.” Read more.

A bumpy virtual #ASCO20

Some prominent oncologists gave up on the virtual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology after facing technical problems with online sessions. Despite those glitches, dozens of virtual meeting attendees praised the online effort, which was assembled in just a few months, and called out virtues such as the quick availability of video transcripts as well as the obvious benefits of low cost, zero travel, and overall convenience. But one sentiment was nearly universal: there’s nothing like the real thing. This year’s meeting, which involved 40,000-plus attendees, was shortened to 3 days and limited to scientific presentations because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Education sessions will be held online August 8-10. Read more.

Parenting special needs children: An unlikely model

As families adjust to daily life during a pandemic, the parents of special needs children may be able to offer them some lessons. The chronic struggles of many special needs parents – from staying home often to taking on roles in which they have not been trained – strongly resemble the challenges facing most families in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Migdalia Miranda Sotir, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Wheaton, Ill. “Parents may take on active roles supplementing their developmentally delayed children with educational experiences or therapeutic modalities in their own homes given that the needs might be too great to just rely on the school or therapy time,” she writes on MDedge. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

More fatalities in heart transplant patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 infection appears to be associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant recipients. The conclusion is based on a case series with 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a heart transplant during March and April 2020. There was a case-fatality rate of 25%, according to the study published in JAMA Cardiology. “The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview. “These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection.” Read more.

High costs for type 1 diabetes patients: It’s not just insulin

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket costs – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – are still very high. Two separate research letters recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine examined some of the drivers behind these high costs. The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year. “Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” said the lead author of the first research letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Read more.

Most rheumatology drugs don’t up COVID-19 hospitalizations

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests. Researchers looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. Treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily – considered a moderate to high dose – was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization, however. “These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.” Read more.

A bumpy virtual #ASCO20

Some prominent oncologists gave up on the virtual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology after facing technical problems with online sessions. Despite those glitches, dozens of virtual meeting attendees praised the online effort, which was assembled in just a few months, and called out virtues such as the quick availability of video transcripts as well as the obvious benefits of low cost, zero travel, and overall convenience. But one sentiment was nearly universal: there’s nothing like the real thing. This year’s meeting, which involved 40,000-plus attendees, was shortened to 3 days and limited to scientific presentations because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Education sessions will be held online August 8-10. Read more.

Parenting special needs children: An unlikely model

As families adjust to daily life during a pandemic, the parents of special needs children may be able to offer them some lessons. The chronic struggles of many special needs parents – from staying home often to taking on roles in which they have not been trained – strongly resemble the challenges facing most families in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Migdalia Miranda Sotir, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Wheaton, Ill. “Parents may take on active roles supplementing their developmentally delayed children with educational experiences or therapeutic modalities in their own homes given that the needs might be too great to just rely on the school or therapy time,” she writes on MDedge. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.

Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.

“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Similar presentation

HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.

The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”

The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.

Medscape.com

No protective effect

Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.

Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).

Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.

Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).

Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.

“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.

“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.

“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
 

Low threshold

Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.

Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.

“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.

“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.

However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.

The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
 

Vulnerable population

Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”

Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.

Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.

Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.

However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”

The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.

The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.

Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.

“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Similar presentation

HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.

The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”

The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.

Medscape.com

No protective effect

Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.

Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).

Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.

Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).

Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.

“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.

“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.

“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
 

Low threshold

Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.

Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.

“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.

“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.

However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.

The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
 

Vulnerable population

Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”

Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.

Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.

Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.

However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”

The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.

The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.

Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.

“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Similar presentation

HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.

The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”

The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.

Medscape.com

No protective effect

Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.

Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).

Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.

Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).

Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.

“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.

“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.

“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
 

Low threshold

Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.

Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.

“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.

“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.

However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.

The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
 

Vulnerable population

Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”

Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.

Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.

Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.

However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”

The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.

The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket expenditure – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – is still very high.

Indeed, insulin costs have remained relatively stable over time in such private insurance plans, according to another analysis that looked at all types of diabetes.

Those are the findings of two separate research letters published June 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year.

“Insulin is the difference between life and death for patients with type 1 diabetes, and efforts to make it more affordable are critical,” said lead author of the first letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“However, our study shows that even if insulin were free, families would still have substantial out-of-pocket costs for other health care,” he noted in a press release from his institution.

The other research letter examined trends in insulin out-of-pocket costs in 2006-2017 among U.S. patients with any type of diabetes who had different types of private health insurance plans. The study was by Amir Meiri, MD, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Although the study showed relatively stable costs associated with insulin for many privately insured patients with diabetes over the time period examined, “monthly out-of-pocket payments” may still “be burdensome for low-income individuals,” the authors said.

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Laura M. Nally, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that “insulin is only one component of diabetes management.”

Yet they stressed: “Diabetes does not selectively occur among individuals who can afford insulin and who have health insurance; it affects people regardless of their socioeconomic status.”

“The federal health care system should urgently act to make insulin, diabetes-related supplies, and other health care services affordable and available to everyone who needs them.”

Out-of-pocket costs for supplies higher than for insulin

Dr. Chua and colleagues compared out-of-pocket costs for insulin with those for other diabetes-related items, including insulin pump supplies, and glucose meters/continuous monitors, for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes during 2018.

They included data for 65,192 patients aged 1-64 years with type 1 diabetes who had employer-sponsored coverage from medium to large firms.

The population included children of employees (12%), and 22.5% of patients had enrolled in high-deductible ($1,350 individual/$2,700 family) private plans. Overall, 56.8% used insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

Annual out-of-pocket spending was lower for insulin ($435) than other diabetes-related supplies ($490), including insulin pump supplies, continuous and fingerstick glucose monitoring equipment, urine testing strips, pen needles, and syringes.

Mean annual overall out-of-pocket spending was $2,414, but this varied widely.

For 8% of the population spending exceeded $5,000. Insulin accounted for just 18% of overall out-of-pocket spending.

Not surprisingly, out-of-pocket spending increased with the sophistication of the diabetes technology used, ranging from just $79 for those using injections and fingerstick monitoring to $1,037 for those using both insulin pumps and CGMs.

In general, for children, out-of-pocket costs of diabetes-related supplies were considerably higher than for insulin ($823 vs. $497), while for adults the two were similar ($445 vs. $427).

“These technologies can improve quality of life and improve diabetes control for all patients, but can be especially important to the families of children with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua said.

Also not surprisingly, those with high-deductible plans had greater out-of-pocket costs in each category ($3,132 vs. $2,205 overall).

Dr. Chua said the study’s findings are particularly timely given recent efforts by states and insurers to cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin, calling these “important first steps.”

But there is still a long way to go, he said.

“Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua noted.

Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska agreed.

“Although capping insulin copayments is a step in the right direction, such a state law does not protect many individuals with federally regulated insurance plans, with Medicare, or without any insurance,” they noted.

“In addition, insulin copayment caps do little to ease the financial burden of paying for diabetes-related supplies or other healthcare services,” they pointed out.
 

Private plans shield members from out-of-pocket insulin costs

The other study examined out-of-pocket spending for 10,954,436 insulin claims for 612,071 unique patients with diabetes (either type) in different types of private commercial health plans during 2006-2017:

• High-deductible health plans (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA), which have high medication costs because they require payment of the full reimbursement price until the annual deductible is reached (7% of claims).
• Plans with health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which typically have tiered drug copayments and members can use their reimbursement accounts to pay for medical expenses (4% of claims).
• No-account plans (without an HSA) that also typically have tiered drug copayments (80% of claims).

The price of insulin per patient per month rose from $143 in 2006 to $280 in 2012 to $394 in 2017.

However, the share of the insulin price per member per month paid by the patient actually declined from 24% in 2006 to 16% in 2012 to just 10% in 2017.

Because of the increase in insulin price, those corresponding costs still rose from $52 in 2006 to $72 in 2012, but then dropped to $64 in 2017.

By plan type, out-of-pocket costs per member per month were lowest for those no-account plans (from $52 in 2006 to $48 in 2017) and highest for those with HDHP HSA plans ($93 in 2006 to $141 in 2017).

“The data suggest that privately insured patients have been relatively shielded from insulin price increases and that commercial health insurers have accommodated higher insulin prices by increasing premiums or deductibles for all members,” Dr. Meiri and colleagues write.
 

Most vulnerable missing from study: COVID-19 will strike further blow

Although generally agreeing with this conclusion, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska nevertheless faulted the data from Dr. Meiri and colleagues on several counts.

First, they reiterated that the population was limited to those with private insurance plans, and therefore “the groups most vulnerable to high insulin costs may be missing from the study.”

Also, the data do not capture all sources of out-of-pocket insulin spending for people with high copayments, such as the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, GoodRx, or drug manufacturer discounts.

Moreover, the editorialists noted, the study assessed only mean out-of-pocket costs without assessing differences in spending across individuals.

And, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska pointed out, the data do not account for rebates and discounts negotiated between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers. “As a result, these data on health plan spending on insulin may overestimate the net health plan expenditures,” they wrote.

Dr. Chua also warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major adverse impact on the diabetes community.

“Many people with private insurance have lost their jobs and insurance coverage ... This may put health care like insulin and diabetes-related supplies out of reach,” he said.

Dr. Chua has reported receiving support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Meiri has reported receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for the study. Dr. Nally has reported receiving a grant from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lipska has reported receiving support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.

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

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket expenditure – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – is still very high.

Indeed, insulin costs have remained relatively stable over time in such private insurance plans, according to another analysis that looked at all types of diabetes.

Those are the findings of two separate research letters published June 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year.

“Insulin is the difference between life and death for patients with type 1 diabetes, and efforts to make it more affordable are critical,” said lead author of the first letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“However, our study shows that even if insulin were free, families would still have substantial out-of-pocket costs for other health care,” he noted in a press release from his institution.

The other research letter examined trends in insulin out-of-pocket costs in 2006-2017 among U.S. patients with any type of diabetes who had different types of private health insurance plans. The study was by Amir Meiri, MD, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Although the study showed relatively stable costs associated with insulin for many privately insured patients with diabetes over the time period examined, “monthly out-of-pocket payments” may still “be burdensome for low-income individuals,” the authors said.

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Laura M. Nally, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that “insulin is only one component of diabetes management.”

Yet they stressed: “Diabetes does not selectively occur among individuals who can afford insulin and who have health insurance; it affects people regardless of their socioeconomic status.”

“The federal health care system should urgently act to make insulin, diabetes-related supplies, and other health care services affordable and available to everyone who needs them.”

Out-of-pocket costs for supplies higher than for insulin

Dr. Chua and colleagues compared out-of-pocket costs for insulin with those for other diabetes-related items, including insulin pump supplies, and glucose meters/continuous monitors, for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes during 2018.

They included data for 65,192 patients aged 1-64 years with type 1 diabetes who had employer-sponsored coverage from medium to large firms.

The population included children of employees (12%), and 22.5% of patients had enrolled in high-deductible ($1,350 individual/$2,700 family) private plans. Overall, 56.8% used insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

Annual out-of-pocket spending was lower for insulin ($435) than other diabetes-related supplies ($490), including insulin pump supplies, continuous and fingerstick glucose monitoring equipment, urine testing strips, pen needles, and syringes.

Mean annual overall out-of-pocket spending was $2,414, but this varied widely.

For 8% of the population spending exceeded $5,000. Insulin accounted for just 18% of overall out-of-pocket spending.

Not surprisingly, out-of-pocket spending increased with the sophistication of the diabetes technology used, ranging from just $79 for those using injections and fingerstick monitoring to $1,037 for those using both insulin pumps and CGMs.

In general, for children, out-of-pocket costs of diabetes-related supplies were considerably higher than for insulin ($823 vs. $497), while for adults the two were similar ($445 vs. $427).

“These technologies can improve quality of life and improve diabetes control for all patients, but can be especially important to the families of children with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua said.

Also not surprisingly, those with high-deductible plans had greater out-of-pocket costs in each category ($3,132 vs. $2,205 overall).

Dr. Chua said the study’s findings are particularly timely given recent efforts by states and insurers to cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin, calling these “important first steps.”

But there is still a long way to go, he said.

“Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua noted.

Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska agreed.

“Although capping insulin copayments is a step in the right direction, such a state law does not protect many individuals with federally regulated insurance plans, with Medicare, or without any insurance,” they noted.

“In addition, insulin copayment caps do little to ease the financial burden of paying for diabetes-related supplies or other healthcare services,” they pointed out.
 

Private plans shield members from out-of-pocket insulin costs

The other study examined out-of-pocket spending for 10,954,436 insulin claims for 612,071 unique patients with diabetes (either type) in different types of private commercial health plans during 2006-2017:

• High-deductible health plans (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA), which have high medication costs because they require payment of the full reimbursement price until the annual deductible is reached (7% of claims).
• Plans with health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which typically have tiered drug copayments and members can use their reimbursement accounts to pay for medical expenses (4% of claims).
• No-account plans (without an HSA) that also typically have tiered drug copayments (80% of claims).

The price of insulin per patient per month rose from $143 in 2006 to $280 in 2012 to $394 in 2017.

However, the share of the insulin price per member per month paid by the patient actually declined from 24% in 2006 to 16% in 2012 to just 10% in 2017.

Because of the increase in insulin price, those corresponding costs still rose from $52 in 2006 to $72 in 2012, but then dropped to $64 in 2017.

By plan type, out-of-pocket costs per member per month were lowest for those no-account plans (from $52 in 2006 to $48 in 2017) and highest for those with HDHP HSA plans ($93 in 2006 to $141 in 2017).

“The data suggest that privately insured patients have been relatively shielded from insulin price increases and that commercial health insurers have accommodated higher insulin prices by increasing premiums or deductibles for all members,” Dr. Meiri and colleagues write.
 

Most vulnerable missing from study: COVID-19 will strike further blow

Although generally agreeing with this conclusion, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska nevertheless faulted the data from Dr. Meiri and colleagues on several counts.

First, they reiterated that the population was limited to those with private insurance plans, and therefore “the groups most vulnerable to high insulin costs may be missing from the study.”

Also, the data do not capture all sources of out-of-pocket insulin spending for people with high copayments, such as the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, GoodRx, or drug manufacturer discounts.

Moreover, the editorialists noted, the study assessed only mean out-of-pocket costs without assessing differences in spending across individuals.

And, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska pointed out, the data do not account for rebates and discounts negotiated between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers. “As a result, these data on health plan spending on insulin may overestimate the net health plan expenditures,” they wrote.

Dr. Chua also warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major adverse impact on the diabetes community.

“Many people with private insurance have lost their jobs and insurance coverage ... This may put health care like insulin and diabetes-related supplies out of reach,” he said.

Dr. Chua has reported receiving support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Meiri has reported receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for the study. Dr. Nally has reported receiving a grant from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lipska has reported receiving support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.

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

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket expenditure – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – is still very high.

Indeed, insulin costs have remained relatively stable over time in such private insurance plans, according to another analysis that looked at all types of diabetes.

Those are the findings of two separate research letters published June 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year.

“Insulin is the difference between life and death for patients with type 1 diabetes, and efforts to make it more affordable are critical,” said lead author of the first letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“However, our study shows that even if insulin were free, families would still have substantial out-of-pocket costs for other health care,” he noted in a press release from his institution.

The other research letter examined trends in insulin out-of-pocket costs in 2006-2017 among U.S. patients with any type of diabetes who had different types of private health insurance plans. The study was by Amir Meiri, MD, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Although the study showed relatively stable costs associated with insulin for many privately insured patients with diabetes over the time period examined, “monthly out-of-pocket payments” may still “be burdensome for low-income individuals,” the authors said.

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Laura M. Nally, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that “insulin is only one component of diabetes management.”

Yet they stressed: “Diabetes does not selectively occur among individuals who can afford insulin and who have health insurance; it affects people regardless of their socioeconomic status.”

“The federal health care system should urgently act to make insulin, diabetes-related supplies, and other health care services affordable and available to everyone who needs them.”

Out-of-pocket costs for supplies higher than for insulin

Dr. Chua and colleagues compared out-of-pocket costs for insulin with those for other diabetes-related items, including insulin pump supplies, and glucose meters/continuous monitors, for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes during 2018.

They included data for 65,192 patients aged 1-64 years with type 1 diabetes who had employer-sponsored coverage from medium to large firms.

The population included children of employees (12%), and 22.5% of patients had enrolled in high-deductible ($1,350 individual/$2,700 family) private plans. Overall, 56.8% used insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

Annual out-of-pocket spending was lower for insulin ($435) than other diabetes-related supplies ($490), including insulin pump supplies, continuous and fingerstick glucose monitoring equipment, urine testing strips, pen needles, and syringes.

Mean annual overall out-of-pocket spending was $2,414, but this varied widely.

For 8% of the population spending exceeded $5,000. Insulin accounted for just 18% of overall out-of-pocket spending.

Not surprisingly, out-of-pocket spending increased with the sophistication of the diabetes technology used, ranging from just $79 for those using injections and fingerstick monitoring to $1,037 for those using both insulin pumps and CGMs.

In general, for children, out-of-pocket costs of diabetes-related supplies were considerably higher than for insulin ($823 vs. $497), while for adults the two were similar ($445 vs. $427).

“These technologies can improve quality of life and improve diabetes control for all patients, but can be especially important to the families of children with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua said.

Also not surprisingly, those with high-deductible plans had greater out-of-pocket costs in each category ($3,132 vs. $2,205 overall).

Dr. Chua said the study’s findings are particularly timely given recent efforts by states and insurers to cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin, calling these “important first steps.”

But there is still a long way to go, he said.

“Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua noted.

Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska agreed.

“Although capping insulin copayments is a step in the right direction, such a state law does not protect many individuals with federally regulated insurance plans, with Medicare, or without any insurance,” they noted.

“In addition, insulin copayment caps do little to ease the financial burden of paying for diabetes-related supplies or other healthcare services,” they pointed out.
 

Private plans shield members from out-of-pocket insulin costs

The other study examined out-of-pocket spending for 10,954,436 insulin claims for 612,071 unique patients with diabetes (either type) in different types of private commercial health plans during 2006-2017:

• High-deductible health plans (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA), which have high medication costs because they require payment of the full reimbursement price until the annual deductible is reached (7% of claims).
• Plans with health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which typically have tiered drug copayments and members can use their reimbursement accounts to pay for medical expenses (4% of claims).
• No-account plans (without an HSA) that also typically have tiered drug copayments (80% of claims).

The price of insulin per patient per month rose from $143 in 2006 to $280 in 2012 to $394 in 2017.

However, the share of the insulin price per member per month paid by the patient actually declined from 24% in 2006 to 16% in 2012 to just 10% in 2017.

Because of the increase in insulin price, those corresponding costs still rose from $52 in 2006 to $72 in 2012, but then dropped to $64 in 2017.

By plan type, out-of-pocket costs per member per month were lowest for those no-account plans (from $52 in 2006 to $48 in 2017) and highest for those with HDHP HSA plans ($93 in 2006 to $141 in 2017).

“The data suggest that privately insured patients have been relatively shielded from insulin price increases and that commercial health insurers have accommodated higher insulin prices by increasing premiums or deductibles for all members,” Dr. Meiri and colleagues write.
 

Most vulnerable missing from study: COVID-19 will strike further blow

Although generally agreeing with this conclusion, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska nevertheless faulted the data from Dr. Meiri and colleagues on several counts.

First, they reiterated that the population was limited to those with private insurance plans, and therefore “the groups most vulnerable to high insulin costs may be missing from the study.”

Also, the data do not capture all sources of out-of-pocket insulin spending for people with high copayments, such as the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, GoodRx, or drug manufacturer discounts.

Moreover, the editorialists noted, the study assessed only mean out-of-pocket costs without assessing differences in spending across individuals.

And, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska pointed out, the data do not account for rebates and discounts negotiated between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers. “As a result, these data on health plan spending on insulin may overestimate the net health plan expenditures,” they wrote.

Dr. Chua also warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major adverse impact on the diabetes community.

“Many people with private insurance have lost their jobs and insurance coverage ... This may put health care like insulin and diabetes-related supplies out of reach,” he said.

Dr. Chua has reported receiving support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Meiri has reported receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for the study. Dr. Nally has reported receiving a grant from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lipska has reported receiving support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.

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

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Could COVID-19 worsen gambling problems?

Take isolation, add excess available time and anxiety about illness or finances and you get the potential to increase problem gambling behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. A call to action, recently published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine, says it’s essential to gather data and supply guidance on this issue. “People are likely to be experiencing stress at levels they haven’t experienced previously,” said coauthor Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. While multiple factors can contribute to addictive behaviors, “with respect to the pandemic, one concern is that so-called negative reinforcement motivations – engaging in an addictive behavior to escape from depressed or negative mood states – may be a driving motivation for a significant number of people during this time,” he said. Read more.

Food allergies in children are less frequent than expected

Food allergies appear to be less common than previously reported among 6- to 10-year-olds in Europe, according to a recent study. Prevalance ranged from a low of 1.4% to a high of 3.8%, both of which are “considerably lower” than the 16% rate based on parental reports of symptoms such as rash, itching, or diarrhea, Linus Grabenhenrich, MD, MPH, and colleagues reported in Allergy. The most commonly reported allergies were to peanuts and hazelnuts, with a prevalence of just over 5% for both. Previous research on pediatric food allergy prevalence has largely consisted of single-center studies with heterogeneous designs, the researchers noted. Read more.

The grocery store hug

William G. Wilkoff, MD, grew up in a family that didn’t embrace hugging, but as a small-town pediatrician he warmed up to the concept so much that he would frequently hug a passing acquaintance at the grocery store. That’s something he misses in the current environment and that he doesn’t expect will return. “[N]early every week I encounter one or two people with whom I have a long and sometimes emotionally charged relationship,” Dr. Wilkoff wrote in a column on MDedge. “Nurses with whom I sweated over difficult delivery room resuscitations. Parents for whom their anxiety was getting in the way of their ability to parent. Parents and caregivers of complex multiply disabled children who are now adults. Peers who have lost a spouse or a child. I’m sure you have your own list of people who send off that we-need-to-hug spark.” Read more.

Identifying structural lesions of axial spondyloarthritis

What constitutes a structural lesion of the sacroiliac joints on MRI that’s indicative of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has long been a matter of conjecture, but the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) MRI Working Group has developed new definitions that show a high degree of specificity in identifying such lesions in the disease. “Previous studies have described structural lesions in different ways, precluding meaningful comparisons between studies,” Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joint. These definitions have been validated by seven expert readers from the ASAS MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS classification cohort.” Read more.

Making the world’s skin crawl

Clinicians should be aware of the skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially when triaging patients. In a commentary published on MDedge, Kathleen M. Coerdt and Amor Khachemoune, MD, describe the dermatologic implications of COVID-19, including the clinical manifestations of the disease, risk reduction techniques for patients and providers, personal protective equipment-associated adverse reactions, and the financial impact on dermatologists. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Could COVID-19 worsen gambling problems?

Take isolation, add excess available time and anxiety about illness or finances and you get the potential to increase problem gambling behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. A call to action, recently published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine, says it’s essential to gather data and supply guidance on this issue. “People are likely to be experiencing stress at levels they haven’t experienced previously,” said coauthor Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. While multiple factors can contribute to addictive behaviors, “with respect to the pandemic, one concern is that so-called negative reinforcement motivations – engaging in an addictive behavior to escape from depressed or negative mood states – may be a driving motivation for a significant number of people during this time,” he said. Read more.

Food allergies in children are less frequent than expected

Food allergies appear to be less common than previously reported among 6- to 10-year-olds in Europe, according to a recent study. Prevalance ranged from a low of 1.4% to a high of 3.8%, both of which are “considerably lower” than the 16% rate based on parental reports of symptoms such as rash, itching, or diarrhea, Linus Grabenhenrich, MD, MPH, and colleagues reported in Allergy. The most commonly reported allergies were to peanuts and hazelnuts, with a prevalence of just over 5% for both. Previous research on pediatric food allergy prevalence has largely consisted of single-center studies with heterogeneous designs, the researchers noted. Read more.

The grocery store hug

William G. Wilkoff, MD, grew up in a family that didn’t embrace hugging, but as a small-town pediatrician he warmed up to the concept so much that he would frequently hug a passing acquaintance at the grocery store. That’s something he misses in the current environment and that he doesn’t expect will return. “[N]early every week I encounter one or two people with whom I have a long and sometimes emotionally charged relationship,” Dr. Wilkoff wrote in a column on MDedge. “Nurses with whom I sweated over difficult delivery room resuscitations. Parents for whom their anxiety was getting in the way of their ability to parent. Parents and caregivers of complex multiply disabled children who are now adults. Peers who have lost a spouse or a child. I’m sure you have your own list of people who send off that we-need-to-hug spark.” Read more.

Identifying structural lesions of axial spondyloarthritis

What constitutes a structural lesion of the sacroiliac joints on MRI that’s indicative of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has long been a matter of conjecture, but the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) MRI Working Group has developed new definitions that show a high degree of specificity in identifying such lesions in the disease. “Previous studies have described structural lesions in different ways, precluding meaningful comparisons between studies,” Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joint. These definitions have been validated by seven expert readers from the ASAS MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS classification cohort.” Read more.

Making the world’s skin crawl

Clinicians should be aware of the skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially when triaging patients. In a commentary published on MDedge, Kathleen M. Coerdt and Amor Khachemoune, MD, describe the dermatologic implications of COVID-19, including the clinical manifestations of the disease, risk reduction techniques for patients and providers, personal protective equipment-associated adverse reactions, and the financial impact on dermatologists. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Could COVID-19 worsen gambling problems?

Take isolation, add excess available time and anxiety about illness or finances and you get the potential to increase problem gambling behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. A call to action, recently published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine, says it’s essential to gather data and supply guidance on this issue. “People are likely to be experiencing stress at levels they haven’t experienced previously,” said coauthor Marc N. Potenza, MD, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. While multiple factors can contribute to addictive behaviors, “with respect to the pandemic, one concern is that so-called negative reinforcement motivations – engaging in an addictive behavior to escape from depressed or negative mood states – may be a driving motivation for a significant number of people during this time,” he said. Read more.

Food allergies in children are less frequent than expected

Food allergies appear to be less common than previously reported among 6- to 10-year-olds in Europe, according to a recent study. Prevalance ranged from a low of 1.4% to a high of 3.8%, both of which are “considerably lower” than the 16% rate based on parental reports of symptoms such as rash, itching, or diarrhea, Linus Grabenhenrich, MD, MPH, and colleagues reported in Allergy. The most commonly reported allergies were to peanuts and hazelnuts, with a prevalence of just over 5% for both. Previous research on pediatric food allergy prevalence has largely consisted of single-center studies with heterogeneous designs, the researchers noted. Read more.

The grocery store hug

William G. Wilkoff, MD, grew up in a family that didn’t embrace hugging, but as a small-town pediatrician he warmed up to the concept so much that he would frequently hug a passing acquaintance at the grocery store. That’s something he misses in the current environment and that he doesn’t expect will return. “[N]early every week I encounter one or two people with whom I have a long and sometimes emotionally charged relationship,” Dr. Wilkoff wrote in a column on MDedge. “Nurses with whom I sweated over difficult delivery room resuscitations. Parents for whom their anxiety was getting in the way of their ability to parent. Parents and caregivers of complex multiply disabled children who are now adults. Peers who have lost a spouse or a child. I’m sure you have your own list of people who send off that we-need-to-hug spark.” Read more.

Identifying structural lesions of axial spondyloarthritis

What constitutes a structural lesion of the sacroiliac joints on MRI that’s indicative of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has long been a matter of conjecture, but the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) MRI Working Group has developed new definitions that show a high degree of specificity in identifying such lesions in the disease. “Previous studies have described structural lesions in different ways, precluding meaningful comparisons between studies,” Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joint. These definitions have been validated by seven expert readers from the ASAS MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS classification cohort.” Read more.

Making the world’s skin crawl

Clinicians should be aware of the skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially when triaging patients. In a commentary published on MDedge, Kathleen M. Coerdt and Amor Khachemoune, MD, describe the dermatologic implications of COVID-19, including the clinical manifestations of the disease, risk reduction techniques for patients and providers, personal protective equipment-associated adverse reactions, and the financial impact on dermatologists. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.