User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
DAPT may benefit symptomatic carotid endarterectomy patients
LOS ANGELES –
The only patients who benefited from postsurgical treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were those who were symptomatic (had a stroke or transient ischemic attack) prior to their carotid endarterectomy surgery, a minority of the more than 17,000 matched U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018 and were part of this analysis, Nathan Belkin, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Among patients with symptoms prior to their carotid endarterectomy, DAPT at the time of hospital discharge was associated with a 2-year follow-up rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death of about 8%, compared with a rate of about 11% among similar patients discharged on aspirin only, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, among patients who were asymptomatic prior to their carotid endarterectomy, discharge treatment with aspirin only was associated with a 2-year event rate similar to the rate among patients discharged on DAPT.
Based in part on this finding, Dr. Belkin and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, now start symptomatic patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy on DAPT with aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) about 2 weeks before surgery, and then continue the combined regimen long term after surgery. A prospective, randomized study is needed to fully resolve the optimal use of DAPT in patients with significant carotid artery disease scheduled for carotid endarterectomy, but until then, “we’re individualizing DAPT” to patients at high risk because of a prior stroke or TIA who also have no evidence of an elevated bleeding risk, said Dr. Belkin, a vascular surgeon.
“We hypothesize that patients with systemic carotid disease have a systemic disease process and more activated platelets,” which suggests a potential benefit from DAPT, he explained. But the data that Dr. Belkin reported also indicated that recent U.S. use of DAPT in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy has moved beyond this subgroup. The U.S. national data set that Dr. Belkin used for the analysis, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry maintained by the Society for Vascular Surgery, included 87,074 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018. During the entire 16-year period, 30% of patients overall received a prescription for DAPT at hospital discharge, but this level went steadily up during those years. In 2003, the rate of DAPT prescriptions at discharge was below 10% of patients but then rose incrementally over the following years and by 2018 had increased to about 44% despite a prevalence of symptomatic carotid disease closer to about a third of patients.
“It’s surprising that so many patients received DAPT for carotid disease” in recent years, commented Mai N. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, a vascular neurologist with Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. “It’s been thought that DAPT, and especially clopidogrel, was more beneficial for patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, but not so much for patients with carotid disease,” she said in an interview. “We don’t always see systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid artery disease. It’s not standard practice to look for systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid disease,” unless something in the patient’s presentation suggests wider vascular-disease progression.
The primary analysis that Dr. Belkin and associates ran removed about 16% of the patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy from the database: those who received no antiplatelet drug, those who received only clopidogrel, and those who went home from surgery on an anticoagulant. Among the remaining 72,122 patients, 35% received DAPT at discharge and 65% received aspirin only. The patients averaged 70 years old, 61% were men, 37% had a history of stroke or TIA, and their overall 2-year incidence of stroke, TIA, or death was 7.3%. To adjust for many baseline differences between the patients discharged on DAPT and those who got only aspirin, the researchers used propensity-score sorting to identify 17,398 matched patients from the two treatment subgroups, 24% of the total population. Comparison of these DAPT and aspirin-only subgroups showed no difference in the overall, 2-year rate of stroke, TIA, or death.
However, when the analysis divided the patients into asymptomatic and symptomatic subgroups, those discharged on DAPT showed a statistically significant lower rate of stroke, TIA, or death during 2 years of follow-up. The same symptomatic subgroup also showed a statistically significant lower rate of total mortality during 5 years of follow-up when treated with DAPT compared with aspirin only, again an absolute, between-group difference of about 3 percentage points that was statistically significant, a difference not seen in the asymptomatic patients. The type of treatment that symptomatic patients received had no relationship to their 2-year incidence of stroke or TIA.
To confirm these findings, Dr. Belkin and coworkers ran a multivariate logistic regression analysis on the data collected from all 72,122 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and subsequently received either DAPT or aspirin only. The only statistically significant association between treatment and outcome was among the symptomatic patients who received DAPT, who had a significant reduction in their 5-year mortality, compared with symptomatic patients who received only aspirin at hospital discharge.
Ideally, a comparison of DAPT and aspirin-only treatment should also assess the incidence and severity of bleeding events associated with these treatments, but bleeding data were not available in the database, Dr. Belkin said.
Dr. Belkin and Dr. Nguyen-Huynh had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Belkin N et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1): Abstract 67.
LOS ANGELES –
The only patients who benefited from postsurgical treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were those who were symptomatic (had a stroke or transient ischemic attack) prior to their carotid endarterectomy surgery, a minority of the more than 17,000 matched U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018 and were part of this analysis, Nathan Belkin, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Among patients with symptoms prior to their carotid endarterectomy, DAPT at the time of hospital discharge was associated with a 2-year follow-up rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death of about 8%, compared with a rate of about 11% among similar patients discharged on aspirin only, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, among patients who were asymptomatic prior to their carotid endarterectomy, discharge treatment with aspirin only was associated with a 2-year event rate similar to the rate among patients discharged on DAPT.
Based in part on this finding, Dr. Belkin and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, now start symptomatic patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy on DAPT with aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) about 2 weeks before surgery, and then continue the combined regimen long term after surgery. A prospective, randomized study is needed to fully resolve the optimal use of DAPT in patients with significant carotid artery disease scheduled for carotid endarterectomy, but until then, “we’re individualizing DAPT” to patients at high risk because of a prior stroke or TIA who also have no evidence of an elevated bleeding risk, said Dr. Belkin, a vascular surgeon.
“We hypothesize that patients with systemic carotid disease have a systemic disease process and more activated platelets,” which suggests a potential benefit from DAPT, he explained. But the data that Dr. Belkin reported also indicated that recent U.S. use of DAPT in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy has moved beyond this subgroup. The U.S. national data set that Dr. Belkin used for the analysis, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry maintained by the Society for Vascular Surgery, included 87,074 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018. During the entire 16-year period, 30% of patients overall received a prescription for DAPT at hospital discharge, but this level went steadily up during those years. In 2003, the rate of DAPT prescriptions at discharge was below 10% of patients but then rose incrementally over the following years and by 2018 had increased to about 44% despite a prevalence of symptomatic carotid disease closer to about a third of patients.
“It’s surprising that so many patients received DAPT for carotid disease” in recent years, commented Mai N. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, a vascular neurologist with Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. “It’s been thought that DAPT, and especially clopidogrel, was more beneficial for patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, but not so much for patients with carotid disease,” she said in an interview. “We don’t always see systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid artery disease. It’s not standard practice to look for systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid disease,” unless something in the patient’s presentation suggests wider vascular-disease progression.
The primary analysis that Dr. Belkin and associates ran removed about 16% of the patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy from the database: those who received no antiplatelet drug, those who received only clopidogrel, and those who went home from surgery on an anticoagulant. Among the remaining 72,122 patients, 35% received DAPT at discharge and 65% received aspirin only. The patients averaged 70 years old, 61% were men, 37% had a history of stroke or TIA, and their overall 2-year incidence of stroke, TIA, or death was 7.3%. To adjust for many baseline differences between the patients discharged on DAPT and those who got only aspirin, the researchers used propensity-score sorting to identify 17,398 matched patients from the two treatment subgroups, 24% of the total population. Comparison of these DAPT and aspirin-only subgroups showed no difference in the overall, 2-year rate of stroke, TIA, or death.
However, when the analysis divided the patients into asymptomatic and symptomatic subgroups, those discharged on DAPT showed a statistically significant lower rate of stroke, TIA, or death during 2 years of follow-up. The same symptomatic subgroup also showed a statistically significant lower rate of total mortality during 5 years of follow-up when treated with DAPT compared with aspirin only, again an absolute, between-group difference of about 3 percentage points that was statistically significant, a difference not seen in the asymptomatic patients. The type of treatment that symptomatic patients received had no relationship to their 2-year incidence of stroke or TIA.
To confirm these findings, Dr. Belkin and coworkers ran a multivariate logistic regression analysis on the data collected from all 72,122 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and subsequently received either DAPT or aspirin only. The only statistically significant association between treatment and outcome was among the symptomatic patients who received DAPT, who had a significant reduction in their 5-year mortality, compared with symptomatic patients who received only aspirin at hospital discharge.
Ideally, a comparison of DAPT and aspirin-only treatment should also assess the incidence and severity of bleeding events associated with these treatments, but bleeding data were not available in the database, Dr. Belkin said.
Dr. Belkin and Dr. Nguyen-Huynh had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Belkin N et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1): Abstract 67.
LOS ANGELES –
The only patients who benefited from postsurgical treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were those who were symptomatic (had a stroke or transient ischemic attack) prior to their carotid endarterectomy surgery, a minority of the more than 17,000 matched U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018 and were part of this analysis, Nathan Belkin, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Among patients with symptoms prior to their carotid endarterectomy, DAPT at the time of hospital discharge was associated with a 2-year follow-up rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death of about 8%, compared with a rate of about 11% among similar patients discharged on aspirin only, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, among patients who were asymptomatic prior to their carotid endarterectomy, discharge treatment with aspirin only was associated with a 2-year event rate similar to the rate among patients discharged on DAPT.
Based in part on this finding, Dr. Belkin and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, now start symptomatic patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy on DAPT with aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) about 2 weeks before surgery, and then continue the combined regimen long term after surgery. A prospective, randomized study is needed to fully resolve the optimal use of DAPT in patients with significant carotid artery disease scheduled for carotid endarterectomy, but until then, “we’re individualizing DAPT” to patients at high risk because of a prior stroke or TIA who also have no evidence of an elevated bleeding risk, said Dr. Belkin, a vascular surgeon.
“We hypothesize that patients with systemic carotid disease have a systemic disease process and more activated platelets,” which suggests a potential benefit from DAPT, he explained. But the data that Dr. Belkin reported also indicated that recent U.S. use of DAPT in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy has moved beyond this subgroup. The U.S. national data set that Dr. Belkin used for the analysis, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry maintained by the Society for Vascular Surgery, included 87,074 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018. During the entire 16-year period, 30% of patients overall received a prescription for DAPT at hospital discharge, but this level went steadily up during those years. In 2003, the rate of DAPT prescriptions at discharge was below 10% of patients but then rose incrementally over the following years and by 2018 had increased to about 44% despite a prevalence of symptomatic carotid disease closer to about a third of patients.
“It’s surprising that so many patients received DAPT for carotid disease” in recent years, commented Mai N. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, a vascular neurologist with Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. “It’s been thought that DAPT, and especially clopidogrel, was more beneficial for patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, but not so much for patients with carotid disease,” she said in an interview. “We don’t always see systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid artery disease. It’s not standard practice to look for systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid disease,” unless something in the patient’s presentation suggests wider vascular-disease progression.
The primary analysis that Dr. Belkin and associates ran removed about 16% of the patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy from the database: those who received no antiplatelet drug, those who received only clopidogrel, and those who went home from surgery on an anticoagulant. Among the remaining 72,122 patients, 35% received DAPT at discharge and 65% received aspirin only. The patients averaged 70 years old, 61% were men, 37% had a history of stroke or TIA, and their overall 2-year incidence of stroke, TIA, or death was 7.3%. To adjust for many baseline differences between the patients discharged on DAPT and those who got only aspirin, the researchers used propensity-score sorting to identify 17,398 matched patients from the two treatment subgroups, 24% of the total population. Comparison of these DAPT and aspirin-only subgroups showed no difference in the overall, 2-year rate of stroke, TIA, or death.
However, when the analysis divided the patients into asymptomatic and symptomatic subgroups, those discharged on DAPT showed a statistically significant lower rate of stroke, TIA, or death during 2 years of follow-up. The same symptomatic subgroup also showed a statistically significant lower rate of total mortality during 5 years of follow-up when treated with DAPT compared with aspirin only, again an absolute, between-group difference of about 3 percentage points that was statistically significant, a difference not seen in the asymptomatic patients. The type of treatment that symptomatic patients received had no relationship to their 2-year incidence of stroke or TIA.
To confirm these findings, Dr. Belkin and coworkers ran a multivariate logistic regression analysis on the data collected from all 72,122 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and subsequently received either DAPT or aspirin only. The only statistically significant association between treatment and outcome was among the symptomatic patients who received DAPT, who had a significant reduction in their 5-year mortality, compared with symptomatic patients who received only aspirin at hospital discharge.
Ideally, a comparison of DAPT and aspirin-only treatment should also assess the incidence and severity of bleeding events associated with these treatments, but bleeding data were not available in the database, Dr. Belkin said.
Dr. Belkin and Dr. Nguyen-Huynh had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Belkin N et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1): Abstract 67.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2020
FDA moves to expand coronavirus testing capacity; CDC clarifies testing criteria
The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.
At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.
Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.
“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.
On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.
“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.
The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.
“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.
“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*
Updated criteria
The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.
Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.
In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.
Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.
The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.
“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.
*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.
The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.
At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.
Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.
“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.
On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.
“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.
The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.
“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.
“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*
Updated criteria
The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.
Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.
In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.
Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.
The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.
“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.
*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.
The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.
At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.
Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.
“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.
On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.
“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.
The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.
“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.
“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*
Updated criteria
The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.
Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.
In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.
Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.
The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.
“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.
*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.
FROM A PRESS BRIEFING BY THE WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS TASK FORCE
Varied nightly bedtime, sleep duration linked to CVD risk
People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.
Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.
“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.
“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.
As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.
A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.
During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.
Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.
Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).
Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).
Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.
For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).
“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.
This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.
“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”
Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.
Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.
“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.
Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.
The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.
Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.
Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.
Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.
“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”
In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”
They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.
The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.
This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.
Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.
“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.
“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.
As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.
A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.
During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.
Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.
Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).
Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).
Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.
For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).
“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.
This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.
“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”
Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.
Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.
“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.
Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.
The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.
Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.
Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.
Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.
“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”
In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”
They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.
The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.
This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.
Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.
“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.
“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.
As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.
A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.
During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.
Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.
Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).
Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).
Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.
For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).
“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.
This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.
“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”
Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.
Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.
“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.
Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.
The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.
Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.
Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.
Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.
“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”
In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”
They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.
The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.
This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Transradial access gains converts among U.S. interventional neurologists
LOS ANGELES –
“It’s growing dramatically in U.S. practice. It may be hype, but there is big excitement. We are still in an assessment mode, but the adoption rate has been high,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said in an interview during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The big advantage [of transradial catheterization entry] is elimination of groin complications, some of which can be pretty bad. Is it safe for the brain? It’s probably okay, but that needs more study,” said Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology at Emory University and director of the Neurovascular Service at the Grady Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center in Atlanta.
His uncertainty stems from the more difficult route taken to advance a catheter from the wrist into brain vessels, a maneuver that requires significant manipulation of the catheter tip, unlike the path from the right radial artery into the heart’s arteries, a “straight shot,” he explained. To reach the brain’s vasculature, the tip must execute a spin “that may scrape small emboli from the arch or arteries, so we need to look at this a little more carefully.” Ideally in a prospective, randomized study, he said. “We need to see whether the burden of [magnetic resonance] lesions is any higher when you go through the radial [artery].”
Some of the first-reported, large-scale U.S. experiences using a radial-artery approach for various neurovascular procedures, including a few thrombectomy cases, came in a series of 1,272 patients treated at any of four U.S. centers during July 2018 to June 2019, a period when the neurovascular staffs at all four centers transitioned from primarily using femoral-artery access to using radial access as their default mode. During the 12-month transition period, overall use of radial access at all four centers rose from roughly a quarter of all neurovascular interventions during July to September 2018 to closer to 80% by April to June 2019, Eyad Almallouhi, MD, reported at the conference.
During the entire 12 months, the operators ran up a 94% rate of successfully completed procedures using radial access, a rate that rose from about 88% during the first quarter to roughly 95% success during the fourth quarter tracked, said Dr. Almallouhi, a neurologist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. The rate of crossover from what began as a transradial procedure but switched to transfemoral was just under 6% overall, with a nearly 14% crossover rate during the first quarter that then dropped to around 5% for the rest of the transition year. Crossovers for interventional procedures throughout the study year occurred at a 12% rate, while crossovers for diagnostic procedures occurred at a 5% clip throughout the entire year.
None of the transradial patients had a major access-site complication, and minor complications occurred in less than 2% of the patients, including 11 with a forearm hematoma, 6 with forearm pain, and 5 with oozing at their access site. The absence of any major access-site complications among the transradial-access patients in this series contrasts with a recent report of a 1.7% rate of major complications secondary to femoral-artery access for mechanical thrombectomy in a combined analysis of data from seven published studies that included 660 thrombectomy procedures (Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6423). The other three centers that participated in the study Dr. Almallouhi presented were the University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and the University of Pittsburgh.
Of the 1,272 total procedures studied, 83% were diagnostic procedures, which had an overall 95% success rate, and 17% were interventional procedures, which had a success rate of 89%. The interventional transradial procedures included 62 primary coilings of aneurysms, 44 stent-assisted aneurysm coilings, 40 patients who underwent a flow diversion, 21 balloon-assisted aneurysm coilings, and 24 patients who underwent stroke thrombectomy.
The size of the devices commonly used for thrombectomy are often too large to allow for radial-artery access, noted Dr. Nogueira. For urgent interventions like thrombectomy “we use balloon-guided catheters that are large-bore and don’t fit well in the radial,” he said, although thrombectomy via the radial artery without a balloon-guided catheter is possible for clots located in the basilar artery. Last year, researchers in Germany reported using a balloon-guided catheter to perform mechanical thrombectomy via the radial artery (Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct 1;25[5]:508-10). But it’s a different story for elective, diagnostic procedures. “I have moved most of these to transradial,” Dr. Nogueira said. He and his coauthors summarized the case for transradial access for cerebral angiography in a recent review; in addition to enhanced safety they cited other advantages including improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost because of a shorter length of stay (Interv Cardiol Clin. 2020 Jan;9[1]:75-86).
Despite his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of other neurointerventionalists for the transradial approach, other stroke neurologists have been more cautious and slower to shift away from the femoral approach. “Our experience has been that for most cases it’s a bit more challenging to access the cervical vessels from the radial artery than from the traditional femoral approach. For arches with complex anatomy, however, the transradial approach can be of benefit in some cases, depending on the angles that need to be traversed,” commented Jeremy Payne, MD, director of the Banner Center for Neurovascular Medicine and medical director of the Banner—University Medical Center Phoenix Comprehensive Stroke Program. Dr. Payne highlighted that, while he is not an interventionalist himself, he and his interventional staff have regularly discussed the transradial option.
“In the cardiology literature the radial approach has been very successful, with better overall safety than the traditional femoral approach. Largely this seems to do with the anatomy of the aortic arch. It’s simply a more direct approach to the coronaries via the right radial artery; getting the wire into the correct vessel is significantly more difficult the more acute the angle it has to traverse,” such as when the target is an intracerebral vessel, Dr. Payne said in an interview.
“Our experience in the past 6 months has been about 25% transradial for some of our procedures, mainly diagnostic angiograms. We don’t find any difference in safety, however, as our transfemoral procedures are already very safe. One of the benefits of a transradial approach has been that a closure device may not be needed, with fewer vascular complications at the access site, such as fistula formation. We use ultrasound for access, and have not seen a difference in those approaches at all so far. One might argue that using ultrasound to establish access would slow us down, but so far our fastest case start-to-recanalization time in an acute stroke this year was 6 minutes, so speed does not appear to be a limiting issue. Another concern overall for transradial access is the potential limitation in the tools we may be able to deploy, given the smaller size of the vessel. It is reassuring [in the report from Dr. Almallouhi] that a variety of cases were successfully completed via this approach. However, fewer than 2% of their cases [24 patients] were apparently emergent, acute strokes, lending no specific support to that context. I do not expect that to change based on this paper,” Dr. Payne concluded.
“It is not clear to me that transradial neurointervention will change much. We have excellent safety data for the femoral approach, a proven track record of efficacy, and for most patients it seems to afford a somewhat wider range of tools that can be deployed, with simpler anatomy for accessing the cervical vessels in most arches. It is reassuring that the results reported by Dr. Almallouhi did not suggest negative outcomes, and as such I suspect the transradial approach at least gives us an additional option in a minority of patients. We have seen in the past 5-10 years an explosion of tools for the endovascular treatment of stroke; transradial access represents another potential strategy that appears so far to be safe,” Dr. Payne said.
Drs. Nogueira, Almallouhi, and Payne had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Almallouhi E et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A64.
LOS ANGELES –
“It’s growing dramatically in U.S. practice. It may be hype, but there is big excitement. We are still in an assessment mode, but the adoption rate has been high,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said in an interview during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The big advantage [of transradial catheterization entry] is elimination of groin complications, some of which can be pretty bad. Is it safe for the brain? It’s probably okay, but that needs more study,” said Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology at Emory University and director of the Neurovascular Service at the Grady Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center in Atlanta.
His uncertainty stems from the more difficult route taken to advance a catheter from the wrist into brain vessels, a maneuver that requires significant manipulation of the catheter tip, unlike the path from the right radial artery into the heart’s arteries, a “straight shot,” he explained. To reach the brain’s vasculature, the tip must execute a spin “that may scrape small emboli from the arch or arteries, so we need to look at this a little more carefully.” Ideally in a prospective, randomized study, he said. “We need to see whether the burden of [magnetic resonance] lesions is any higher when you go through the radial [artery].”
Some of the first-reported, large-scale U.S. experiences using a radial-artery approach for various neurovascular procedures, including a few thrombectomy cases, came in a series of 1,272 patients treated at any of four U.S. centers during July 2018 to June 2019, a period when the neurovascular staffs at all four centers transitioned from primarily using femoral-artery access to using radial access as their default mode. During the 12-month transition period, overall use of radial access at all four centers rose from roughly a quarter of all neurovascular interventions during July to September 2018 to closer to 80% by April to June 2019, Eyad Almallouhi, MD, reported at the conference.
During the entire 12 months, the operators ran up a 94% rate of successfully completed procedures using radial access, a rate that rose from about 88% during the first quarter to roughly 95% success during the fourth quarter tracked, said Dr. Almallouhi, a neurologist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. The rate of crossover from what began as a transradial procedure but switched to transfemoral was just under 6% overall, with a nearly 14% crossover rate during the first quarter that then dropped to around 5% for the rest of the transition year. Crossovers for interventional procedures throughout the study year occurred at a 12% rate, while crossovers for diagnostic procedures occurred at a 5% clip throughout the entire year.
None of the transradial patients had a major access-site complication, and minor complications occurred in less than 2% of the patients, including 11 with a forearm hematoma, 6 with forearm pain, and 5 with oozing at their access site. The absence of any major access-site complications among the transradial-access patients in this series contrasts with a recent report of a 1.7% rate of major complications secondary to femoral-artery access for mechanical thrombectomy in a combined analysis of data from seven published studies that included 660 thrombectomy procedures (Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6423). The other three centers that participated in the study Dr. Almallouhi presented were the University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and the University of Pittsburgh.
Of the 1,272 total procedures studied, 83% were diagnostic procedures, which had an overall 95% success rate, and 17% were interventional procedures, which had a success rate of 89%. The interventional transradial procedures included 62 primary coilings of aneurysms, 44 stent-assisted aneurysm coilings, 40 patients who underwent a flow diversion, 21 balloon-assisted aneurysm coilings, and 24 patients who underwent stroke thrombectomy.
The size of the devices commonly used for thrombectomy are often too large to allow for radial-artery access, noted Dr. Nogueira. For urgent interventions like thrombectomy “we use balloon-guided catheters that are large-bore and don’t fit well in the radial,” he said, although thrombectomy via the radial artery without a balloon-guided catheter is possible for clots located in the basilar artery. Last year, researchers in Germany reported using a balloon-guided catheter to perform mechanical thrombectomy via the radial artery (Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct 1;25[5]:508-10). But it’s a different story for elective, diagnostic procedures. “I have moved most of these to transradial,” Dr. Nogueira said. He and his coauthors summarized the case for transradial access for cerebral angiography in a recent review; in addition to enhanced safety they cited other advantages including improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost because of a shorter length of stay (Interv Cardiol Clin. 2020 Jan;9[1]:75-86).
Despite his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of other neurointerventionalists for the transradial approach, other stroke neurologists have been more cautious and slower to shift away from the femoral approach. “Our experience has been that for most cases it’s a bit more challenging to access the cervical vessels from the radial artery than from the traditional femoral approach. For arches with complex anatomy, however, the transradial approach can be of benefit in some cases, depending on the angles that need to be traversed,” commented Jeremy Payne, MD, director of the Banner Center for Neurovascular Medicine and medical director of the Banner—University Medical Center Phoenix Comprehensive Stroke Program. Dr. Payne highlighted that, while he is not an interventionalist himself, he and his interventional staff have regularly discussed the transradial option.
“In the cardiology literature the radial approach has been very successful, with better overall safety than the traditional femoral approach. Largely this seems to do with the anatomy of the aortic arch. It’s simply a more direct approach to the coronaries via the right radial artery; getting the wire into the correct vessel is significantly more difficult the more acute the angle it has to traverse,” such as when the target is an intracerebral vessel, Dr. Payne said in an interview.
“Our experience in the past 6 months has been about 25% transradial for some of our procedures, mainly diagnostic angiograms. We don’t find any difference in safety, however, as our transfemoral procedures are already very safe. One of the benefits of a transradial approach has been that a closure device may not be needed, with fewer vascular complications at the access site, such as fistula formation. We use ultrasound for access, and have not seen a difference in those approaches at all so far. One might argue that using ultrasound to establish access would slow us down, but so far our fastest case start-to-recanalization time in an acute stroke this year was 6 minutes, so speed does not appear to be a limiting issue. Another concern overall for transradial access is the potential limitation in the tools we may be able to deploy, given the smaller size of the vessel. It is reassuring [in the report from Dr. Almallouhi] that a variety of cases were successfully completed via this approach. However, fewer than 2% of their cases [24 patients] were apparently emergent, acute strokes, lending no specific support to that context. I do not expect that to change based on this paper,” Dr. Payne concluded.
“It is not clear to me that transradial neurointervention will change much. We have excellent safety data for the femoral approach, a proven track record of efficacy, and for most patients it seems to afford a somewhat wider range of tools that can be deployed, with simpler anatomy for accessing the cervical vessels in most arches. It is reassuring that the results reported by Dr. Almallouhi did not suggest negative outcomes, and as such I suspect the transradial approach at least gives us an additional option in a minority of patients. We have seen in the past 5-10 years an explosion of tools for the endovascular treatment of stroke; transradial access represents another potential strategy that appears so far to be safe,” Dr. Payne said.
Drs. Nogueira, Almallouhi, and Payne had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Almallouhi E et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A64.
LOS ANGELES –
“It’s growing dramatically in U.S. practice. It may be hype, but there is big excitement. We are still in an assessment mode, but the adoption rate has been high,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said in an interview during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The big advantage [of transradial catheterization entry] is elimination of groin complications, some of which can be pretty bad. Is it safe for the brain? It’s probably okay, but that needs more study,” said Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology at Emory University and director of the Neurovascular Service at the Grady Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center in Atlanta.
His uncertainty stems from the more difficult route taken to advance a catheter from the wrist into brain vessels, a maneuver that requires significant manipulation of the catheter tip, unlike the path from the right radial artery into the heart’s arteries, a “straight shot,” he explained. To reach the brain’s vasculature, the tip must execute a spin “that may scrape small emboli from the arch or arteries, so we need to look at this a little more carefully.” Ideally in a prospective, randomized study, he said. “We need to see whether the burden of [magnetic resonance] lesions is any higher when you go through the radial [artery].”
Some of the first-reported, large-scale U.S. experiences using a radial-artery approach for various neurovascular procedures, including a few thrombectomy cases, came in a series of 1,272 patients treated at any of four U.S. centers during July 2018 to June 2019, a period when the neurovascular staffs at all four centers transitioned from primarily using femoral-artery access to using radial access as their default mode. During the 12-month transition period, overall use of radial access at all four centers rose from roughly a quarter of all neurovascular interventions during July to September 2018 to closer to 80% by April to June 2019, Eyad Almallouhi, MD, reported at the conference.
During the entire 12 months, the operators ran up a 94% rate of successfully completed procedures using radial access, a rate that rose from about 88% during the first quarter to roughly 95% success during the fourth quarter tracked, said Dr. Almallouhi, a neurologist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. The rate of crossover from what began as a transradial procedure but switched to transfemoral was just under 6% overall, with a nearly 14% crossover rate during the first quarter that then dropped to around 5% for the rest of the transition year. Crossovers for interventional procedures throughout the study year occurred at a 12% rate, while crossovers for diagnostic procedures occurred at a 5% clip throughout the entire year.
None of the transradial patients had a major access-site complication, and minor complications occurred in less than 2% of the patients, including 11 with a forearm hematoma, 6 with forearm pain, and 5 with oozing at their access site. The absence of any major access-site complications among the transradial-access patients in this series contrasts with a recent report of a 1.7% rate of major complications secondary to femoral-artery access for mechanical thrombectomy in a combined analysis of data from seven published studies that included 660 thrombectomy procedures (Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6423). The other three centers that participated in the study Dr. Almallouhi presented were the University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and the University of Pittsburgh.
Of the 1,272 total procedures studied, 83% were diagnostic procedures, which had an overall 95% success rate, and 17% were interventional procedures, which had a success rate of 89%. The interventional transradial procedures included 62 primary coilings of aneurysms, 44 stent-assisted aneurysm coilings, 40 patients who underwent a flow diversion, 21 balloon-assisted aneurysm coilings, and 24 patients who underwent stroke thrombectomy.
The size of the devices commonly used for thrombectomy are often too large to allow for radial-artery access, noted Dr. Nogueira. For urgent interventions like thrombectomy “we use balloon-guided catheters that are large-bore and don’t fit well in the radial,” he said, although thrombectomy via the radial artery without a balloon-guided catheter is possible for clots located in the basilar artery. Last year, researchers in Germany reported using a balloon-guided catheter to perform mechanical thrombectomy via the radial artery (Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct 1;25[5]:508-10). But it’s a different story for elective, diagnostic procedures. “I have moved most of these to transradial,” Dr. Nogueira said. He and his coauthors summarized the case for transradial access for cerebral angiography in a recent review; in addition to enhanced safety they cited other advantages including improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost because of a shorter length of stay (Interv Cardiol Clin. 2020 Jan;9[1]:75-86).
Despite his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of other neurointerventionalists for the transradial approach, other stroke neurologists have been more cautious and slower to shift away from the femoral approach. “Our experience has been that for most cases it’s a bit more challenging to access the cervical vessels from the radial artery than from the traditional femoral approach. For arches with complex anatomy, however, the transradial approach can be of benefit in some cases, depending on the angles that need to be traversed,” commented Jeremy Payne, MD, director of the Banner Center for Neurovascular Medicine and medical director of the Banner—University Medical Center Phoenix Comprehensive Stroke Program. Dr. Payne highlighted that, while he is not an interventionalist himself, he and his interventional staff have regularly discussed the transradial option.
“In the cardiology literature the radial approach has been very successful, with better overall safety than the traditional femoral approach. Largely this seems to do with the anatomy of the aortic arch. It’s simply a more direct approach to the coronaries via the right radial artery; getting the wire into the correct vessel is significantly more difficult the more acute the angle it has to traverse,” such as when the target is an intracerebral vessel, Dr. Payne said in an interview.
“Our experience in the past 6 months has been about 25% transradial for some of our procedures, mainly diagnostic angiograms. We don’t find any difference in safety, however, as our transfemoral procedures are already very safe. One of the benefits of a transradial approach has been that a closure device may not be needed, with fewer vascular complications at the access site, such as fistula formation. We use ultrasound for access, and have not seen a difference in those approaches at all so far. One might argue that using ultrasound to establish access would slow us down, but so far our fastest case start-to-recanalization time in an acute stroke this year was 6 minutes, so speed does not appear to be a limiting issue. Another concern overall for transradial access is the potential limitation in the tools we may be able to deploy, given the smaller size of the vessel. It is reassuring [in the report from Dr. Almallouhi] that a variety of cases were successfully completed via this approach. However, fewer than 2% of their cases [24 patients] were apparently emergent, acute strokes, lending no specific support to that context. I do not expect that to change based on this paper,” Dr. Payne concluded.
“It is not clear to me that transradial neurointervention will change much. We have excellent safety data for the femoral approach, a proven track record of efficacy, and for most patients it seems to afford a somewhat wider range of tools that can be deployed, with simpler anatomy for accessing the cervical vessels in most arches. It is reassuring that the results reported by Dr. Almallouhi did not suggest negative outcomes, and as such I suspect the transradial approach at least gives us an additional option in a minority of patients. We have seen in the past 5-10 years an explosion of tools for the endovascular treatment of stroke; transradial access represents another potential strategy that appears so far to be safe,” Dr. Payne said.
Drs. Nogueira, Almallouhi, and Payne had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Almallouhi E et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A64.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2020
What medical conferences are being canceled by coronavirus?
In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.
So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.
In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.
APS Physics Meetings
@APSMeetings
Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch
734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020
Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.
Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.
All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.
Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:
- Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
- American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
- American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
- American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
- American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
- Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
- American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
- American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
- American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.
So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.
In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.
APS Physics Meetings
@APSMeetings
Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch
734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020
Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.
Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.
All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.
Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:
- Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
- American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
- American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
- American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
- American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
- Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
- American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
- American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
- American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.
So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.
In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.
APS Physics Meetings
@APSMeetings
Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch
734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020
Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.
Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.
All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.
Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:
- Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
- American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
- American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
- American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
- American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
- Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
- American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
- American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
- American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Upcoming vaccine may offset surge in polio subtypes
Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.
Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.
Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.
The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.
The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.
A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.
Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.
Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.
Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.
The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.
The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.
A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.
Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.
Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.
Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.
The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.
The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.
A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.
Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM AN ACIP MEETING
Washington State grapples with coronavirus outbreak
As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.
Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.
Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.
Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.
“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”
Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.
Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.
The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.
No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.
Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.
Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.
“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.
Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.
Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.
“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.
“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.
A summary of deaths and ongoing cases, drawn from the press release, is below:
The four new cases are:
• A male in his 50s, hospitalized at Highline Hospital. He has no known exposures. He is in stable but critical condition. He had no underlying health conditions.
• A male in his 70s, a resident of Life Care, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man had underlying health conditions, and died March 1.
• A female in her 70s, a resident of Life Care, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman had underlying health conditions, and died March 1.
• A female in her 80s, a resident of Life Care, was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. She is in critical condition.
In addition, a woman in her 80s, who was already reported as in critical condition at Evergreen, has died. She died on March 1.
Ten other cases, already reported earlier by Public Health, include:
• A female in her 80s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. This person has now died, and is reported as such above.
• A female in her 90s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition.
• A male in his 70s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition.
• A male in his 70s was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. He had underlying health conditions and died on Feb. 29.
• A man in his 60s, hospitalized at Valley Medical Center in Renton.
• A man in 60s, hospitalized at Virginia Mason Medical Center.
• A woman in her 50s, who had traveled to South Korea; recovering at home.
• A woman in her 70s, who was a resident of Life Care in Kirkland, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth.
• A woman in her 40s, employed by Life Care, who is hospitalized at Overlake Medical Center.
• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.
As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.
Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.
Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.
Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.
“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”
Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.
Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.
The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.
No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.
Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.
Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.
“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.
Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.
Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.
“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.
“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.
A summary of deaths and ongoing cases, drawn from the press release, is below:
The four new cases are:
• A male in his 50s, hospitalized at Highline Hospital. He has no known exposures. He is in stable but critical condition. He had no underlying health conditions.
• A male in his 70s, a resident of Life Care, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man had underlying health conditions, and died March 1.
• A female in her 70s, a resident of Life Care, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman had underlying health conditions, and died March 1.
• A female in her 80s, a resident of Life Care, was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. She is in critical condition.
In addition, a woman in her 80s, who was already reported as in critical condition at Evergreen, has died. She died on March 1.
Ten other cases, already reported earlier by Public Health, include:
• A female in her 80s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. This person has now died, and is reported as such above.
• A female in her 90s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition.
• A male in his 70s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition.
• A male in his 70s was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. He had underlying health conditions and died on Feb. 29.
• A man in his 60s, hospitalized at Valley Medical Center in Renton.
• A man in 60s, hospitalized at Virginia Mason Medical Center.
• A woman in her 50s, who had traveled to South Korea; recovering at home.
• A woman in her 70s, who was a resident of Life Care in Kirkland, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth.
• A woman in her 40s, employed by Life Care, who is hospitalized at Overlake Medical Center.
• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.
As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.
Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.
Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.
Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.
“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”
Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.
Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.
The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.
No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.
Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.
Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.
“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.
Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.
Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.
“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.
“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.
A summary of deaths and ongoing cases, drawn from the press release, is below:
The four new cases are:
• A male in his 50s, hospitalized at Highline Hospital. He has no known exposures. He is in stable but critical condition. He had no underlying health conditions.
• A male in his 70s, a resident of Life Care, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man had underlying health conditions, and died March 1.
• A female in her 70s, a resident of Life Care, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman had underlying health conditions, and died March 1.
• A female in her 80s, a resident of Life Care, was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. She is in critical condition.
In addition, a woman in her 80s, who was already reported as in critical condition at Evergreen, has died. She died on March 1.
Ten other cases, already reported earlier by Public Health, include:
• A female in her 80s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. This person has now died, and is reported as such above.
• A female in her 90s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The woman has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition.
• A male in his 70s, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland. The man has underlying health conditions, and is in critical condition.
• A male in his 70s was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. He had underlying health conditions and died on Feb. 29.
• A man in his 60s, hospitalized at Valley Medical Center in Renton.
• A man in 60s, hospitalized at Virginia Mason Medical Center.
• A woman in her 50s, who had traveled to South Korea; recovering at home.
• A woman in her 70s, who was a resident of Life Care in Kirkland, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth.
• A woman in her 40s, employed by Life Care, who is hospitalized at Overlake Medical Center.
• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.
FROM A KING COUNTY, WASH. NEWS BRIEFING
Bad behavior by medical trainees target of new proposal
Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.
Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.
But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.
The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.
“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”
Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?
An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.
But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.
Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.
“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
A Core Competency
For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.
However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.
The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.
But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.
The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.
In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.
Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.
“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.
Framework Helps Standardize Thinking
She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.
Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”
He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.
Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.
“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”
But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.
“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”
Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.
Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.
But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.
The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.
“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”
Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?
An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.
But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.
Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.
“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
A Core Competency
For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.
However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.
The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.
But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.
The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.
In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.
Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.
“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.
Framework Helps Standardize Thinking
She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.
Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”
He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.
Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.
“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”
But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.
“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”
Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.
Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.
But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.
The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.
“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”
Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?
An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.
But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.
Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.
“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
A Core Competency
For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.
However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.
The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.
But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.
The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.
In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.
Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.
“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.
Framework Helps Standardize Thinking
She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.
Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”
He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.
Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.
“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”
But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.
“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”
Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The fate of the ACA now rests with the U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas v. California, a closely watched case that could upend the Affordable Care Act.
The justices will hear oral arguments in the case in fall 2020, with a ruling likely in 2021.
The Texas case, consolidated with a similar challenge, stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Since the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.
In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions by the defendants requesting that the high court review the appeals court decision.
The review follows a previous look at the ACA’s mandate by the Supreme Court in 2012. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, justices upheld the ACA’s insurance mandate as constitutional, ruling the requirement was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in agreement with the court’s four more liberal members.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas v. California, a closely watched case that could upend the Affordable Care Act.
The justices will hear oral arguments in the case in fall 2020, with a ruling likely in 2021.
The Texas case, consolidated with a similar challenge, stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Since the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.
In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions by the defendants requesting that the high court review the appeals court decision.
The review follows a previous look at the ACA’s mandate by the Supreme Court in 2012. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, justices upheld the ACA’s insurance mandate as constitutional, ruling the requirement was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in agreement with the court’s four more liberal members.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas v. California, a closely watched case that could upend the Affordable Care Act.
The justices will hear oral arguments in the case in fall 2020, with a ruling likely in 2021.
The Texas case, consolidated with a similar challenge, stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Since the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.
In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions by the defendants requesting that the high court review the appeals court decision.
The review follows a previous look at the ACA’s mandate by the Supreme Court in 2012. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, justices upheld the ACA’s insurance mandate as constitutional, ruling the requirement was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in agreement with the court’s four more liberal members.
Shared medical appointments educate and encourage MS patients
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – according to a presentation at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“At first, this may sound to patients like an awkward concept – they may say, ‘Why would I want to have a medical appointment with other people?’ ” Mary R. Rensel, MD, who is the director of the program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said. “But once they get there, it’s wonderful to see what happens – patients start to encourage each other and share resources, and it’s enjoyable for the patients and providers alike,” she said.
The main objective of the shared appointments concept was to increase education regarding comorbidity prevention and management of MS, however, importantly, if patients wish to discuss any issues privately, they are accommodated. In addition, family members, children, and caregivers are all welcome to attend. “Caregivers need support as well, so their participation is welcome,” Dr. Rensel said.
A significant benefit of the program is the extended time with providers – an hour and a half – which is a substantially longer period than patients and providers typically spend together, Dr. Rensel noted. “Medical visits are often so rushed, but this gives us much more time together, to learn more and talk about things like brain health,” she said.
With guidance from a multidisciplinary team including nurses, wellness providers, psychologists, and other experts, there are currently seven meeting themes that are rotated through the year, focusing on a variety of subjects. One, for instance, includes education from a nutritionist, and the center includes a kitchen for the group to learn about and try recipes. Other sessions include chair yoga, art therapy, guided imagery, and exercise physiology.
The Cleveland Clinic is a leader in the concept of SMA and offers it to as many as 360 disease states. With the pilot program now underway for more than 3 years, Dr. Rensel and her team conducted a study to investigate its effects.
For the study, the authors collected clinical data on 50 patients who had attended at least one session between January 2016 and June 2019. Among the patients, 94% were female, 80% had relapsing-remitting MS, and mean age was 50. Patients had a mean Determined Disease Steps (PDSS) score of 3.1 plus or minus 2.4 and the average 25-foot walk and nine-hole peg test (dominant hand) times were 9.4 plus or minus 7.8 seconds and 25.8 plus or minus 9.1 seconds, respectively.
The most common comorbidity was depression/anxiety, occurring in 44% of patients, however after participation in the shared medical appointment program, their mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores, with higher scores indicative of worse depression, decreased from pretreatment scores of 7.3 plus or minus 5.5 to posttreatment scores of 5.1 plus or minus 5.6 (P = .001).
Notably, the program appears to have had a positive effect on patients’ use of health care services – while there was a significant decrease in the mean number of emergency room visits (n = 13 to n = 2; P = .0005), the results showed a favorable increase in mean number of follow-up visits with attendees’ primary care providers (n = 19 to n = 41; P = 3.47), physical therapists (n = 15 to n = 27; P = .004), or psychologists (n = 6 to n = 19; P = .003).
“The study was to evaluate the effect of the program after even just one appointment, and we found it really seemed to increase the use of more appropriate care, with less ER utilization and more visits to primary care,” Dr. Rensel said. The study even showed a small but significant reduction in pre- and postoutcome body mass index (BMI, 30.2 plus or minus 7.3 vs. 28.8 plus or minus 7.1; P = .03).
A critical metric that was not measured in the study – the effect of social interaction and camaraderie in a condition that can, for many, feel socially isolating – is clearly profound, Dr. Rensel said.
Amar Dhand, MD, associate professor of neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, agreed that the peer support in such medical group settings can be highly valuable.
“Shared medical appointments offer an opportunity for peer-to-peer engagement, support, and education,” he said in an interview. “For many patients, this is a chance to bond with persons who are coexperiencing similar problems, allowing new social connections to emerge.”
Dr. Dhand, who spoke on the issue of the importance of social networks at the meeting, noted that, although there are numerous benefits with shared medical appointments, not all patients may respond well.
“Health care settings are one place to stimulate community among peers. This is one important ingredient of addressing social isolation,” he said. “However, there remain challenges such as sustainability of such relationships, paradoxical depression when persons see others with more severe disease, and infrastructure to support such programs.”
The findings from the study, however, do suggest favorable responses, he noted.
“I think, mechanistically, improved psychosocial outcomes are the most pertinent to the intervention,” Dr. Dhand said. “The health care utilization may be attributed to other factors and will need to be assessed in a case control design.”
Key benefits of the shared medical appointment concept
A recent article from Cleveland Clinic researchers reviewing the concept of shared medical appointments summarizes that the programs offer benefits based on nine key principles:
- Group exposure in shared medical appointments combats isolation, which in turn helps to remove doubts about one’s ability to manage illness.
- Patients learn about disease self-management vicariously by witnessing others’ illness experiences.
- Patients feel inspired by seeing others who are coping well.
- Group dynamics lead patients and providers to developing more equitable relationships.
- Providers feel increased appreciation and rapport toward colleagues leading to increased efficiency.
- Providers learn from the patients how better to meet their patients’ needs.
- Adequate time allotment of the SMA leads patients to feel supported.
- Patients receive professional expertise from the provider in combination with firsthand information from peers, resulting in more robust health knowledge.
- Patients have the opportunity to see how the physicians interact with fellow patients, which allows them to get to know the physician and better determine their level of trust.
The take-home message from the shared medical appointments concept is that “it may hit a quadruple aim,” Dr. Rensel said. “Access, cost, outcomes, and provider satisfaction.”
The Shared Medical Appointments program received a grant from Genzyme. Dr. Rensel reported consulting or advisory board relationships with Serono, Biogen, Teva, Genzyme, Novartis, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Dhand had no disclosures to report.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – according to a presentation at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“At first, this may sound to patients like an awkward concept – they may say, ‘Why would I want to have a medical appointment with other people?’ ” Mary R. Rensel, MD, who is the director of the program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said. “But once they get there, it’s wonderful to see what happens – patients start to encourage each other and share resources, and it’s enjoyable for the patients and providers alike,” she said.
The main objective of the shared appointments concept was to increase education regarding comorbidity prevention and management of MS, however, importantly, if patients wish to discuss any issues privately, they are accommodated. In addition, family members, children, and caregivers are all welcome to attend. “Caregivers need support as well, so their participation is welcome,” Dr. Rensel said.
A significant benefit of the program is the extended time with providers – an hour and a half – which is a substantially longer period than patients and providers typically spend together, Dr. Rensel noted. “Medical visits are often so rushed, but this gives us much more time together, to learn more and talk about things like brain health,” she said.
With guidance from a multidisciplinary team including nurses, wellness providers, psychologists, and other experts, there are currently seven meeting themes that are rotated through the year, focusing on a variety of subjects. One, for instance, includes education from a nutritionist, and the center includes a kitchen for the group to learn about and try recipes. Other sessions include chair yoga, art therapy, guided imagery, and exercise physiology.
The Cleveland Clinic is a leader in the concept of SMA and offers it to as many as 360 disease states. With the pilot program now underway for more than 3 years, Dr. Rensel and her team conducted a study to investigate its effects.
For the study, the authors collected clinical data on 50 patients who had attended at least one session between January 2016 and June 2019. Among the patients, 94% were female, 80% had relapsing-remitting MS, and mean age was 50. Patients had a mean Determined Disease Steps (PDSS) score of 3.1 plus or minus 2.4 and the average 25-foot walk and nine-hole peg test (dominant hand) times were 9.4 plus or minus 7.8 seconds and 25.8 plus or minus 9.1 seconds, respectively.
The most common comorbidity was depression/anxiety, occurring in 44% of patients, however after participation in the shared medical appointment program, their mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores, with higher scores indicative of worse depression, decreased from pretreatment scores of 7.3 plus or minus 5.5 to posttreatment scores of 5.1 plus or minus 5.6 (P = .001).
Notably, the program appears to have had a positive effect on patients’ use of health care services – while there was a significant decrease in the mean number of emergency room visits (n = 13 to n = 2; P = .0005), the results showed a favorable increase in mean number of follow-up visits with attendees’ primary care providers (n = 19 to n = 41; P = 3.47), physical therapists (n = 15 to n = 27; P = .004), or psychologists (n = 6 to n = 19; P = .003).
“The study was to evaluate the effect of the program after even just one appointment, and we found it really seemed to increase the use of more appropriate care, with less ER utilization and more visits to primary care,” Dr. Rensel said. The study even showed a small but significant reduction in pre- and postoutcome body mass index (BMI, 30.2 plus or minus 7.3 vs. 28.8 plus or minus 7.1; P = .03).
A critical metric that was not measured in the study – the effect of social interaction and camaraderie in a condition that can, for many, feel socially isolating – is clearly profound, Dr. Rensel said.
Amar Dhand, MD, associate professor of neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, agreed that the peer support in such medical group settings can be highly valuable.
“Shared medical appointments offer an opportunity for peer-to-peer engagement, support, and education,” he said in an interview. “For many patients, this is a chance to bond with persons who are coexperiencing similar problems, allowing new social connections to emerge.”
Dr. Dhand, who spoke on the issue of the importance of social networks at the meeting, noted that, although there are numerous benefits with shared medical appointments, not all patients may respond well.
“Health care settings are one place to stimulate community among peers. This is one important ingredient of addressing social isolation,” he said. “However, there remain challenges such as sustainability of such relationships, paradoxical depression when persons see others with more severe disease, and infrastructure to support such programs.”
The findings from the study, however, do suggest favorable responses, he noted.
“I think, mechanistically, improved psychosocial outcomes are the most pertinent to the intervention,” Dr. Dhand said. “The health care utilization may be attributed to other factors and will need to be assessed in a case control design.”
Key benefits of the shared medical appointment concept
A recent article from Cleveland Clinic researchers reviewing the concept of shared medical appointments summarizes that the programs offer benefits based on nine key principles:
- Group exposure in shared medical appointments combats isolation, which in turn helps to remove doubts about one’s ability to manage illness.
- Patients learn about disease self-management vicariously by witnessing others’ illness experiences.
- Patients feel inspired by seeing others who are coping well.
- Group dynamics lead patients and providers to developing more equitable relationships.
- Providers feel increased appreciation and rapport toward colleagues leading to increased efficiency.
- Providers learn from the patients how better to meet their patients’ needs.
- Adequate time allotment of the SMA leads patients to feel supported.
- Patients receive professional expertise from the provider in combination with firsthand information from peers, resulting in more robust health knowledge.
- Patients have the opportunity to see how the physicians interact with fellow patients, which allows them to get to know the physician and better determine their level of trust.
The take-home message from the shared medical appointments concept is that “it may hit a quadruple aim,” Dr. Rensel said. “Access, cost, outcomes, and provider satisfaction.”
The Shared Medical Appointments program received a grant from Genzyme. Dr. Rensel reported consulting or advisory board relationships with Serono, Biogen, Teva, Genzyme, Novartis, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Dhand had no disclosures to report.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – according to a presentation at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“At first, this may sound to patients like an awkward concept – they may say, ‘Why would I want to have a medical appointment with other people?’ ” Mary R. Rensel, MD, who is the director of the program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said. “But once they get there, it’s wonderful to see what happens – patients start to encourage each other and share resources, and it’s enjoyable for the patients and providers alike,” she said.
The main objective of the shared appointments concept was to increase education regarding comorbidity prevention and management of MS, however, importantly, if patients wish to discuss any issues privately, they are accommodated. In addition, family members, children, and caregivers are all welcome to attend. “Caregivers need support as well, so their participation is welcome,” Dr. Rensel said.
A significant benefit of the program is the extended time with providers – an hour and a half – which is a substantially longer period than patients and providers typically spend together, Dr. Rensel noted. “Medical visits are often so rushed, but this gives us much more time together, to learn more and talk about things like brain health,” she said.
With guidance from a multidisciplinary team including nurses, wellness providers, psychologists, and other experts, there are currently seven meeting themes that are rotated through the year, focusing on a variety of subjects. One, for instance, includes education from a nutritionist, and the center includes a kitchen for the group to learn about and try recipes. Other sessions include chair yoga, art therapy, guided imagery, and exercise physiology.
The Cleveland Clinic is a leader in the concept of SMA and offers it to as many as 360 disease states. With the pilot program now underway for more than 3 years, Dr. Rensel and her team conducted a study to investigate its effects.
For the study, the authors collected clinical data on 50 patients who had attended at least one session between January 2016 and June 2019. Among the patients, 94% were female, 80% had relapsing-remitting MS, and mean age was 50. Patients had a mean Determined Disease Steps (PDSS) score of 3.1 plus or minus 2.4 and the average 25-foot walk and nine-hole peg test (dominant hand) times were 9.4 plus or minus 7.8 seconds and 25.8 plus or minus 9.1 seconds, respectively.
The most common comorbidity was depression/anxiety, occurring in 44% of patients, however after participation in the shared medical appointment program, their mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores, with higher scores indicative of worse depression, decreased from pretreatment scores of 7.3 plus or minus 5.5 to posttreatment scores of 5.1 plus or minus 5.6 (P = .001).
Notably, the program appears to have had a positive effect on patients’ use of health care services – while there was a significant decrease in the mean number of emergency room visits (n = 13 to n = 2; P = .0005), the results showed a favorable increase in mean number of follow-up visits with attendees’ primary care providers (n = 19 to n = 41; P = 3.47), physical therapists (n = 15 to n = 27; P = .004), or psychologists (n = 6 to n = 19; P = .003).
“The study was to evaluate the effect of the program after even just one appointment, and we found it really seemed to increase the use of more appropriate care, with less ER utilization and more visits to primary care,” Dr. Rensel said. The study even showed a small but significant reduction in pre- and postoutcome body mass index (BMI, 30.2 plus or minus 7.3 vs. 28.8 plus or minus 7.1; P = .03).
A critical metric that was not measured in the study – the effect of social interaction and camaraderie in a condition that can, for many, feel socially isolating – is clearly profound, Dr. Rensel said.
Amar Dhand, MD, associate professor of neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, agreed that the peer support in such medical group settings can be highly valuable.
“Shared medical appointments offer an opportunity for peer-to-peer engagement, support, and education,” he said in an interview. “For many patients, this is a chance to bond with persons who are coexperiencing similar problems, allowing new social connections to emerge.”
Dr. Dhand, who spoke on the issue of the importance of social networks at the meeting, noted that, although there are numerous benefits with shared medical appointments, not all patients may respond well.
“Health care settings are one place to stimulate community among peers. This is one important ingredient of addressing social isolation,” he said. “However, there remain challenges such as sustainability of such relationships, paradoxical depression when persons see others with more severe disease, and infrastructure to support such programs.”
The findings from the study, however, do suggest favorable responses, he noted.
“I think, mechanistically, improved psychosocial outcomes are the most pertinent to the intervention,” Dr. Dhand said. “The health care utilization may be attributed to other factors and will need to be assessed in a case control design.”
Key benefits of the shared medical appointment concept
A recent article from Cleveland Clinic researchers reviewing the concept of shared medical appointments summarizes that the programs offer benefits based on nine key principles:
- Group exposure in shared medical appointments combats isolation, which in turn helps to remove doubts about one’s ability to manage illness.
- Patients learn about disease self-management vicariously by witnessing others’ illness experiences.
- Patients feel inspired by seeing others who are coping well.
- Group dynamics lead patients and providers to developing more equitable relationships.
- Providers feel increased appreciation and rapport toward colleagues leading to increased efficiency.
- Providers learn from the patients how better to meet their patients’ needs.
- Adequate time allotment of the SMA leads patients to feel supported.
- Patients receive professional expertise from the provider in combination with firsthand information from peers, resulting in more robust health knowledge.
- Patients have the opportunity to see how the physicians interact with fellow patients, which allows them to get to know the physician and better determine their level of trust.
The take-home message from the shared medical appointments concept is that “it may hit a quadruple aim,” Dr. Rensel said. “Access, cost, outcomes, and provider satisfaction.”
The Shared Medical Appointments program received a grant from Genzyme. Dr. Rensel reported consulting or advisory board relationships with Serono, Biogen, Teva, Genzyme, Novartis, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Dhand had no disclosures to report.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2020