A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

Chiesi Global Rare Diseases announced that the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of deferiprone (Ferriprox) for the treatment of patients with transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes when current chelation therapy is inadequate. The new formulation of twice-a-day Ferriprox 1,000 mg oral tablets eliminates the midday dose, according to a company press release.

“A treatment option that reduces serum ferritin, cardiac iron, and liver iron with an established safety profile and now twice-a-day tablet dosing can represent a significant advantage for patients,” stated Thomas Coates, MD, in the press release. Dr. Coates is the section head of hematology at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Deferiprone was originally approved by the FDA in 2011 for the treatment of transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes. Ferriprox contains a label warning that it can cause agranulocytosis that can lead to serious infections and death. As neutropenia may precede the development of agranulocytosis, the warning advises measurement of the absolute neutrophil count before starting Ferriprox and monitoring the ANC weekly on therapy. In addition, Ferriprox should be interrupted if infection develops, and the ANC should be monitored more frequently.

As Ferriprox can cause fetal harm, women of reproductive potential should be advised to use an effective method of contraception during treatment and for at least 6 months after the last dose, according to the company release.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Chiesi Global Rare Diseases announced that the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of deferiprone (Ferriprox) for the treatment of patients with transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes when current chelation therapy is inadequate. The new formulation of twice-a-day Ferriprox 1,000 mg oral tablets eliminates the midday dose, according to a company press release.

“A treatment option that reduces serum ferritin, cardiac iron, and liver iron with an established safety profile and now twice-a-day tablet dosing can represent a significant advantage for patients,” stated Thomas Coates, MD, in the press release. Dr. Coates is the section head of hematology at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Deferiprone was originally approved by the FDA in 2011 for the treatment of transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes. Ferriprox contains a label warning that it can cause agranulocytosis that can lead to serious infections and death. As neutropenia may precede the development of agranulocytosis, the warning advises measurement of the absolute neutrophil count before starting Ferriprox and monitoring the ANC weekly on therapy. In addition, Ferriprox should be interrupted if infection develops, and the ANC should be monitored more frequently.

As Ferriprox can cause fetal harm, women of reproductive potential should be advised to use an effective method of contraception during treatment and for at least 6 months after the last dose, according to the company release.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Chiesi Global Rare Diseases announced that the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of deferiprone (Ferriprox) for the treatment of patients with transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes when current chelation therapy is inadequate. The new formulation of twice-a-day Ferriprox 1,000 mg oral tablets eliminates the midday dose, according to a company press release.

“A treatment option that reduces serum ferritin, cardiac iron, and liver iron with an established safety profile and now twice-a-day tablet dosing can represent a significant advantage for patients,” stated Thomas Coates, MD, in the press release. Dr. Coates is the section head of hematology at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Deferiprone was originally approved by the FDA in 2011 for the treatment of transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes. Ferriprox contains a label warning that it can cause agranulocytosis that can lead to serious infections and death. As neutropenia may precede the development of agranulocytosis, the warning advises measurement of the absolute neutrophil count before starting Ferriprox and monitoring the ANC weekly on therapy. In addition, Ferriprox should be interrupted if infection develops, and the ANC should be monitored more frequently.

As Ferriprox can cause fetal harm, women of reproductive potential should be advised to use an effective method of contraception during treatment and for at least 6 months after the last dose, according to the company release.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Key clinical point: Inner nuclear layer (INL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) measures may be novel biomarkers of neurodegeneration in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS).

Major finding: Independent of age, PMS vs. relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was associated with a faster thinning of peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (β = −0.34%/year; P less than .001), ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (β = −0.27%/year; P less than .001), INL (β = −0.10%/year; P = .01), and ONL (β = −0.13%/year; P = .01).

Study details: In all, 178 RRMS, 186 PMS, and 66 control participants were followed for a median of 3.7 years; retinal imaging was performed with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the NIH/NINDS, National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, Walters Foundation, and ACTRIMS. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Sotirchos ES et al. Ann Neurol. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/ana.25738.

Key clinical point: Inner nuclear layer (INL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) measures may be novel biomarkers of neurodegeneration in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS).

Major finding: Independent of age, PMS vs. relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was associated with a faster thinning of peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (β = −0.34%/year; P less than .001), ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (β = −0.27%/year; P less than .001), INL (β = −0.10%/year; P = .01), and ONL (β = −0.13%/year; P = .01).

Study details: In all, 178 RRMS, 186 PMS, and 66 control participants were followed for a median of 3.7 years; retinal imaging was performed with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the NIH/NINDS, National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, Walters Foundation, and ACTRIMS. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Sotirchos ES et al. Ann Neurol. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/ana.25738.

Key clinical point: Inner nuclear layer (INL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) measures may be novel biomarkers of neurodegeneration in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS).

Major finding: Independent of age, PMS vs. relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was associated with a faster thinning of peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (β = −0.34%/year; P less than .001), ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (β = −0.27%/year; P less than .001), INL (β = −0.10%/year; P = .01), and ONL (β = −0.13%/year; P = .01).

Study details: In all, 178 RRMS, 186 PMS, and 66 control participants were followed for a median of 3.7 years; retinal imaging was performed with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the NIH/NINDS, National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, Walters Foundation, and ACTRIMS. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Sotirchos ES et al. Ann Neurol. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/ana.25738.

Key clinical point: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are more likely to have subtly impaired cognitive function irrespective of race/ethnicity.

Major finding: Mean oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores were lower in patients with MS/CIS vs. control participants (52.2 vs. 58.3; P less than .0001). Independent predictors of lower oral SDMT scores included being black (β = −5.97) or Hispanic (β = −3.06), having MS (β = −6.04), lower educational attainment (β = −5.02), and having a household income ≤$65,000 (β = −2.28). No significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and having MS on SDMT scores (P = .41).

Study details: 1,174 adult patients (mean age, 40.7 years) from the MS Sunshine Study were included in this analysis (MS/CIS cases, n = 554; matched control participants, n = 620).

 Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. The presenting author received personal compensation or funding from Genzyme, Biogen, Serrono, MedDay, and Novartis, and grant support from the NIH, the National MS Society, California Community Foundation, and the Charitable Guthy-Jackson Foundation.

Citation: Amezcua L et al. Neurology. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009210.

Key clinical point: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are more likely to have subtly impaired cognitive function irrespective of race/ethnicity.

Major finding: Mean oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores were lower in patients with MS/CIS vs. control participants (52.2 vs. 58.3; P less than .0001). Independent predictors of lower oral SDMT scores included being black (β = −5.97) or Hispanic (β = −3.06), having MS (β = −6.04), lower educational attainment (β = −5.02), and having a household income ≤$65,000 (β = −2.28). No significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and having MS on SDMT scores (P = .41).

Study details: 1,174 adult patients (mean age, 40.7 years) from the MS Sunshine Study were included in this analysis (MS/CIS cases, n = 554; matched control participants, n = 620).

 Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. The presenting author received personal compensation or funding from Genzyme, Biogen, Serrono, MedDay, and Novartis, and grant support from the NIH, the National MS Society, California Community Foundation, and the Charitable Guthy-Jackson Foundation.

Citation: Amezcua L et al. Neurology. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009210.

Key clinical point: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are more likely to have subtly impaired cognitive function irrespective of race/ethnicity.

Major finding: Mean oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores were lower in patients with MS/CIS vs. control participants (52.2 vs. 58.3; P less than .0001). Independent predictors of lower oral SDMT scores included being black (β = −5.97) or Hispanic (β = −3.06), having MS (β = −6.04), lower educational attainment (β = −5.02), and having a household income ≤$65,000 (β = −2.28). No significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and having MS on SDMT scores (P = .41).

Study details: 1,174 adult patients (mean age, 40.7 years) from the MS Sunshine Study were included in this analysis (MS/CIS cases, n = 554; matched control participants, n = 620).

 Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. The presenting author received personal compensation or funding from Genzyme, Biogen, Serrono, MedDay, and Novartis, and grant support from the NIH, the National MS Society, California Community Foundation, and the Charitable Guthy-Jackson Foundation.

Citation: Amezcua L et al. Neurology. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009210.

Key clinical point: The number of T1-hypointense areas (T1-count), corrected for T2-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR)-hyperintense lesion volume, reflects the disease severity and activity in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: T1-count (Spearman’s correlation coefficient [rho] = 0.51, P less than .001), gray-matter atrophy (rho = 0.40; P less than .01), and white-matter atrophy (rho = 0.49; P less than .001) significantly correlated with the expanded disability status scale. T1-count divided by FLAIR lesion volume correlated with the MS severity score (rho = 0.60; P less than .001).

Study details: This study included 42 patients with MS who were treated in a single university hospital in Japan; each patient underwent brain volumetry and was followed-up for more than 3 years until 2017.

Disclosures: Ichiro Nakashima was funded by JSPS KAKENHI. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Akaishi T et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231225.

Key clinical point: The number of T1-hypointense areas (T1-count), corrected for T2-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR)-hyperintense lesion volume, reflects the disease severity and activity in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: T1-count (Spearman’s correlation coefficient [rho] = 0.51, P less than .001), gray-matter atrophy (rho = 0.40; P less than .01), and white-matter atrophy (rho = 0.49; P less than .001) significantly correlated with the expanded disability status scale. T1-count divided by FLAIR lesion volume correlated with the MS severity score (rho = 0.60; P less than .001).

Study details: This study included 42 patients with MS who were treated in a single university hospital in Japan; each patient underwent brain volumetry and was followed-up for more than 3 years until 2017.

Disclosures: Ichiro Nakashima was funded by JSPS KAKENHI. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Akaishi T et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231225.

Key clinical point: The number of T1-hypointense areas (T1-count), corrected for T2-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR)-hyperintense lesion volume, reflects the disease severity and activity in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: T1-count (Spearman’s correlation coefficient [rho] = 0.51, P less than .001), gray-matter atrophy (rho = 0.40; P less than .01), and white-matter atrophy (rho = 0.49; P less than .001) significantly correlated with the expanded disability status scale. T1-count divided by FLAIR lesion volume correlated with the MS severity score (rho = 0.60; P less than .001).

Study details: This study included 42 patients with MS who were treated in a single university hospital in Japan; each patient underwent brain volumetry and was followed-up for more than 3 years until 2017.

Disclosures: Ichiro Nakashima was funded by JSPS KAKENHI. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Akaishi T et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231225.

Key clinical point: Most women diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have children without incurring an increased risk of relapses and should be encouraged to breastfeed exclusively as this lowers the risk of postpartum relapses.

Major finding: The annualized relapse rates (ARRs) declined from 0.37 before pregnancy to 0.14 during pregnancy (P less than .0001), with no rebound disease activity in the postpartum period. ARR was found to be 0.27 at 3 months postpartum and 0.37 at 4-6 months, matching prepregnancy rates. Exclusive breastfeeding for at least 2 months after delivery reduced the risk of relapse in the first 6 months postpartum (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; P = .0093).

Study details: This study evaluated the electronic health records of 466 pregnancies among 375 women with MS and their infants at the Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California between 2008 and 2016.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Annette Langer-Gould has received grant support and awards from the NIH, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the National MS Society; and currently serves as a voting member on the California Technology Assessment Forum, a core program of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). She has received sponsored and reimbursed travel from the ICER. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Langer-Gould A et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009374.

Key clinical point: Most women diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have children without incurring an increased risk of relapses and should be encouraged to breastfeed exclusively as this lowers the risk of postpartum relapses.

Major finding: The annualized relapse rates (ARRs) declined from 0.37 before pregnancy to 0.14 during pregnancy (P less than .0001), with no rebound disease activity in the postpartum period. ARR was found to be 0.27 at 3 months postpartum and 0.37 at 4-6 months, matching prepregnancy rates. Exclusive breastfeeding for at least 2 months after delivery reduced the risk of relapse in the first 6 months postpartum (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; P = .0093).

Study details: This study evaluated the electronic health records of 466 pregnancies among 375 women with MS and their infants at the Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California between 2008 and 2016.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Annette Langer-Gould has received grant support and awards from the NIH, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the National MS Society; and currently serves as a voting member on the California Technology Assessment Forum, a core program of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). She has received sponsored and reimbursed travel from the ICER. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Langer-Gould A et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009374.

Key clinical point: Most women diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) can have children without incurring an increased risk of relapses and should be encouraged to breastfeed exclusively as this lowers the risk of postpartum relapses.

Major finding: The annualized relapse rates (ARRs) declined from 0.37 before pregnancy to 0.14 during pregnancy (P less than .0001), with no rebound disease activity in the postpartum period. ARR was found to be 0.27 at 3 months postpartum and 0.37 at 4-6 months, matching prepregnancy rates. Exclusive breastfeeding for at least 2 months after delivery reduced the risk of relapse in the first 6 months postpartum (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37; P = .0093).

Study details: This study evaluated the electronic health records of 466 pregnancies among 375 women with MS and their infants at the Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California between 2008 and 2016.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Annette Langer-Gould has received grant support and awards from the NIH, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the National MS Society; and currently serves as a voting member on the California Technology Assessment Forum, a core program of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). She has received sponsored and reimbursed travel from the ICER. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Langer-Gould A et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009374.

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

Neurologists continue to be on the lower end of the physician compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last, and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Neurologist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Neurologists’ average annual income this year rose to $280,000, up from $267,000 last year. More than half of neurologists (53%) feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that the data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, data show that since the start of the crisis, physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they had closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in neurology, with male neurologists earning about 26% more than their female peers ($299,000 vs. $237,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

More than half of all physicians (56%) say they receive an incentive bonus. Neurologists report that they are eligible for an annual incentive bonus of $35,000. Average annual incentive bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one third of physicians overall who receive incentive bonuses say the prospect of receiving the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours. A higher percentage of neurologists (41%) say their potential bonus influenced them to increase their work hours.

Fifty-eight percent of neurologists achieve more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, neurologists achieve about two thirds of their potential bonus, the same proportion as for physicians overall.

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts who were interviewed recently by Medscape noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.
 

Happy at work

On average, male neurologists spend 37.7 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat more hours per week than female neurologists (36.1 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, neurologists spend 16.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5), infectious disease physicians (18.5), and psychiatrists (18.3). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a neurologist? Being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses tops the list (33%), followed by making the world a better place/helping others (26%), relationships with and gratitude from patients (18%), and making good money at a job they like (11%). A few cited teaching (5%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing neurology is having to follow so many rules and regulations (26%). Other challenges include having to work long hours (18%), dealing with difficult patients (17%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (13%), and working with electronic health records (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over again, 73% of neurologists would still choose medicine as a career, and 86% would again choose neurology.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding neurologists include the following:

• At 18%, neurologists rank near the middle among physicians with regard to losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• 29% of neurologists say they use physician assistants (PAs) to treat patients in their practices, and 53% use nurse practitioners (NPs); 38% use neither for patient care. Of neurologists who work with PAs and NPs in their offices, 49% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• Two-thirds of neurologists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; none say they will not take new Medicare patients; and 26% are undecided.
• Neurologists participate in various payment methods; 78% are reimbursed via insurance, 35% have fee-for-service arrangements, and 28% are in accountable care organizations.
• Nearly 40% of neurologists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system option, and 10% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologists continue to be on the lower end of the physician compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last, and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Neurologist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Neurologists’ average annual income this year rose to $280,000, up from $267,000 last year. More than half of neurologists (53%) feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that the data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, data show that since the start of the crisis, physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they had closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in neurology, with male neurologists earning about 26% more than their female peers ($299,000 vs. $237,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

More than half of all physicians (56%) say they receive an incentive bonus. Neurologists report that they are eligible for an annual incentive bonus of $35,000. Average annual incentive bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one third of physicians overall who receive incentive bonuses say the prospect of receiving the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours. A higher percentage of neurologists (41%) say their potential bonus influenced them to increase their work hours.

Fifty-eight percent of neurologists achieve more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, neurologists achieve about two thirds of their potential bonus, the same proportion as for physicians overall.

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts who were interviewed recently by Medscape noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.
 

Happy at work

On average, male neurologists spend 37.7 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat more hours per week than female neurologists (36.1 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, neurologists spend 16.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5), infectious disease physicians (18.5), and psychiatrists (18.3). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a neurologist? Being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses tops the list (33%), followed by making the world a better place/helping others (26%), relationships with and gratitude from patients (18%), and making good money at a job they like (11%). A few cited teaching (5%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing neurology is having to follow so many rules and regulations (26%). Other challenges include having to work long hours (18%), dealing with difficult patients (17%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (13%), and working with electronic health records (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over again, 73% of neurologists would still choose medicine as a career, and 86% would again choose neurology.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding neurologists include the following:

• At 18%, neurologists rank near the middle among physicians with regard to losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• 29% of neurologists say they use physician assistants (PAs) to treat patients in their practices, and 53% use nurse practitioners (NPs); 38% use neither for patient care. Of neurologists who work with PAs and NPs in their offices, 49% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• Two-thirds of neurologists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; none say they will not take new Medicare patients; and 26% are undecided.
• Neurologists participate in various payment methods; 78% are reimbursed via insurance, 35% have fee-for-service arrangements, and 28% are in accountable care organizations.
• Nearly 40% of neurologists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system option, and 10% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologists continue to be on the lower end of the physician compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last, and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Neurologist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Neurologists’ average annual income this year rose to $280,000, up from $267,000 last year. More than half of neurologists (53%) feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that the data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, data show that since the start of the crisis, physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they had closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in neurology, with male neurologists earning about 26% more than their female peers ($299,000 vs. $237,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

More than half of all physicians (56%) say they receive an incentive bonus. Neurologists report that they are eligible for an annual incentive bonus of $35,000. Average annual incentive bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one third of physicians overall who receive incentive bonuses say the prospect of receiving the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours. A higher percentage of neurologists (41%) say their potential bonus influenced them to increase their work hours.

Fifty-eight percent of neurologists achieve more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, neurologists achieve about two thirds of their potential bonus, the same proportion as for physicians overall.

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts who were interviewed recently by Medscape noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.
 

Happy at work

On average, male neurologists spend 37.7 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat more hours per week than female neurologists (36.1 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, neurologists spend 16.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5), infectious disease physicians (18.5), and psychiatrists (18.3). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a neurologist? Being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses tops the list (33%), followed by making the world a better place/helping others (26%), relationships with and gratitude from patients (18%), and making good money at a job they like (11%). A few cited teaching (5%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing neurology is having to follow so many rules and regulations (26%). Other challenges include having to work long hours (18%), dealing with difficult patients (17%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (13%), and working with electronic health records (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over again, 73% of neurologists would still choose medicine as a career, and 86% would again choose neurology.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding neurologists include the following:

• At 18%, neurologists rank near the middle among physicians with regard to losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• 29% of neurologists say they use physician assistants (PAs) to treat patients in their practices, and 53% use nurse practitioners (NPs); 38% use neither for patient care. Of neurologists who work with PAs and NPs in their offices, 49% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• Two-thirds of neurologists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; none say they will not take new Medicare patients; and 26% are undecided.
• Neurologists participate in various payment methods; 78% are reimbursed via insurance, 35% have fee-for-service arrangements, and 28% are in accountable care organizations.
• Nearly 40% of neurologists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system option, and 10% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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