Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Monthly supplementation with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) in older adults without deficiency has no significant benefit in terms of survival outcomes, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.

“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.

With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”

This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.

“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
 

D-Health Trial

The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D₃ supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).

They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).

There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).

Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.

An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”

Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.

Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
 

Findings supported by previous research

The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D₃ supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.

In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D₃ for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D₃ supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.

“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
 

Longer-term supplementation beneficial?

The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.

“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.

“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”

She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.

“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.

The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.

“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.

They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”

Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
 

Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency

Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”

That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.

“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”

The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships. 


version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Monthly supplementation with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) in older adults without deficiency has no significant benefit in terms of survival outcomes, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.

“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.

With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”

This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.

“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
 

D-Health Trial

The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D₃ supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).

They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).

There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).

Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.

An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”

Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.

Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
 

Findings supported by previous research

The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D₃ supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.

In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D₃ for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D₃ supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.

“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
 

Longer-term supplementation beneficial?

The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.

“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.

“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”

She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.

“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.

The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.

“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.

They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”

Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
 

Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency

Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”

That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.

“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”

The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships. 


version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Monthly supplementation with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) in older adults without deficiency has no significant benefit in terms of survival outcomes, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.

“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.

With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”

This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.

“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
 

D-Health Trial

The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D₃ supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).

They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).

There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).

Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.

An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”

Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.

Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
 

Findings supported by previous research

The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D₃ supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.

In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D₃ for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D₃ supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.

“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
 

Longer-term supplementation beneficial?

The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.

“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.

“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”

She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.

“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.

The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.

“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.

They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”

Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
 

Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency

Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”

That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.

“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”

The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships. 


version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

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

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

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

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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