MDedge Rheumatology

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.

Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.

“Telehealth has quickly emerged as the preferred care setting during the pandemic and will drive patient behavior in the future,” Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”

For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.

The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.

Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.

“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.

Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.

Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.

Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.

“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.

The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
 

rfranki@mdedge.com

If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.

Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.

“Telehealth has quickly emerged as the preferred care setting during the pandemic and will drive patient behavior in the future,” Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”

For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.

The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.

Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.

“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.

Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.

Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.

Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.

“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.

The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
 

rfranki@mdedge.com

If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.

Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.

“Telehealth has quickly emerged as the preferred care setting during the pandemic and will drive patient behavior in the future,” Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”

For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.

The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.

Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.

“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.

Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.

Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.

Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.

“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.

The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
 

rfranki@mdedge.com

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Chloroquine may be associated with serious psychiatric side effects, even in patients with no family or personal history of psychiatric disorders, a new review suggests.

In a letter to the editor published online July 28 in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the authors summarize data from several studies published as far back as 1993 and as recently as May 2020.

“In addition to previously reported side effects, chloroquine could also induce psychiatric side effects which are polymorphic and can persist even after stopping the drug,” lead author Florence Gressier, MD, PhD, CESP, Inserm, department of psychiatry, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France, said in an interview.

“In COVID-19 patients who may still be [undergoing treatment] with chloroquine, close psychiatric assessment and monitoring should be performed,” she said.
 

Heated controversy

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been at the center of heated controversy for their potential role in preventing or treating COVID-19.

Following findings of a small French study that suggested efficacy in lowering the viral load in patients with COVID-19, President Donald Trump expressed optimism regarding the role of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19, calling it a “game changer”.

Other studies, however, have called into question both the efficacy and the safety of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. On June 15, the Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization it had given in March to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine continues to be prescribed for COVID-19. For example, an article that appeared in Click2Houston on June 15 quoted the chief medical officer of Houston’s United Memorial Center as saying he plans to continue prescribing hydroxychloroquine for patients with COVID-19 until he finds a better alternative.

As discussed in a Medscape expert commentary, a group of physicians who held a “white coat summit” in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. The video of their summit was retweeted by President Trump and garnered millions of views before it was taken down by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
 

Sudden onset

For the new review, “we wanted to alert the public and practitioners on the potentially psychiatric risks induced by chloroquine, as it could be taken as self-medication or potentially still prescribed,” Dr. Gressier said.

“We think the format of the letter to the editor allows information to be provided in a concise and clear manner,” she added.

According to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database, 12% of reported adverse events (520 of 4,336) following the use of chloroquine that occurred between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2019 were neuropsychiatric. These events included amnesia, delirium, hallucinations, depression, and loss of consciousness, the authors write.

The researchers acknowledged that the incidence of psychiatric adverse effects associated with the use of chloroquine is “unclear in the absence of high-quality, randomized placebo-controlled trials of its safety.” Nevertheless, they pointed out that there have been reports of insomnia and depression when the drug was used as prophylaxis against malaria .

Moreover, some case series or case reports describe symptoms such as depression, anxiety, agitation, violent outburst, suicidal ideation, and psychosis in patients who have been treated with chloroquine for malaria, lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis .

“In contrast to many other psychoses, chloroquine psychosis may be more affective and include prominent visual hallucinations, symptoms of derealization, and disorders of thought, with preserved insight,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the frequency of symptoms does not appear to be connected to the cumulative dose or the duration of treatment, and the onset of psychosis or other adverse effects is usually “sudden.”

In addition, they warn that the drug’s psychiatric effects may go unnoticed, especially because COVID-19 itself has been associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms, making it hard to distinguish between symptoms caused by the illness and those caused by the drug.

Although the psychiatric symptoms typically occur early after treatment initiation, some “subtle” symptoms might persist after stopping the drug, possibly owing to its “extremely long” half-life, the authors stated.

Dr. Gressier noted that practicing clinicians should look up reports about self-medication with chloroquine “and warn their patients about the risk induced by chloroquine.”
 

Safe but ‘not benign’

Nilanjana Bose, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist at the Rheumatology Center of Houston, said she uses hydroxychloroquine “all the time” in clinical practice to treat patients with rheumatic conditions.

“I cannot comment on whether it [hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine] is a potential prophylactic or treatment for COVID-19, but I can say that, from a safety point of view, as a rheumatologist who uses hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg/day, I do not think we need to worry about serious [psychiatric] side effects,” Dr. Bose said in an interview.

Because clinicians are trying all types of possible treatments for COVID-19, “if this medication has possible efficacy, it is a great medicine from a rheumatologic perspective and is safe,” she added.

Nevertheless, the drug is “not benign, and regular side effects will be there, and of course, higher doses will cause more side effects,” said Dr. Bose, who was not involved in authoring the letter.

She counsels patients about potential psychiatric side effects of hydroxychloroquine because some of her patients have complained about irritability, worsening anxiety and depression, and difficulty sleeping.
 

Be wary

James “Jimmy” Potash, MD, MPH, Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview that the “take-home message of this letter is that serious psychiatric effects, psychotic illness in particular,” can occur in individuals who take chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

In addition, “these are potentially very concerning side effects that psychiatrists should be aware of,” noted Dr. Potash, department director and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins.

He said that one of his patients who had been “completely psychiatrically healthy” took chloroquine prophylactically prior to traveling overseas. After she began taking the drug, she had an episode of mania that resolved once she discontinued the medication and received treatment for the mania.

“If you add potential psychiatric side effects to the other side effects that can result from these medications, that adds up to a pretty important reason to be wary of taking them, particularly for the indication of COVID-19, where the level of evidence that it helps in any way is still quite weak,” Dr. Potash said.

In an interview, Remington Nevin, MD, MPH, DrPH, executive director at the Quinism Foundation, White River Junction, Vt., a nonprofit organization that supports and promotes education and research on disorders caused by poisoning by quinoline drugs; and faculty associate in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that the authors of the letter “are to be commended for their efforts in raising awareness of the potentially lasting and disabling psychiatric effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, which, as with similar effects from other synthetic quinoline antimalarials, have occasionally been overlooked or misattributed to other conditions.”

He added: “I have proposed that the chronic neuropsychiatric effects of this class of drug are best considered not as side effects but as signs and symptoms of a disorder known as chronic quinoline encephalopathy caused by poisoning of the central nervous system.”

Dr. Gressier and the other letter authors, Dr. Bose, and Dr. Potash have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nevin has been retained as a consultant and expert witness in legal cases involving claims of adverse effects from quinoline antimalarial drugs.

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

Chloroquine may be associated with serious psychiatric side effects, even in patients with no family or personal history of psychiatric disorders, a new review suggests.

In a letter to the editor published online July 28 in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the authors summarize data from several studies published as far back as 1993 and as recently as May 2020.

“In addition to previously reported side effects, chloroquine could also induce psychiatric side effects which are polymorphic and can persist even after stopping the drug,” lead author Florence Gressier, MD, PhD, CESP, Inserm, department of psychiatry, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France, said in an interview.

“In COVID-19 patients who may still be [undergoing treatment] with chloroquine, close psychiatric assessment and monitoring should be performed,” she said.
 

Heated controversy

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been at the center of heated controversy for their potential role in preventing or treating COVID-19.

Following findings of a small French study that suggested efficacy in lowering the viral load in patients with COVID-19, President Donald Trump expressed optimism regarding the role of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19, calling it a “game changer”.

Other studies, however, have called into question both the efficacy and the safety of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. On June 15, the Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization it had given in March to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine continues to be prescribed for COVID-19. For example, an article that appeared in Click2Houston on June 15 quoted the chief medical officer of Houston’s United Memorial Center as saying he plans to continue prescribing hydroxychloroquine for patients with COVID-19 until he finds a better alternative.

As discussed in a Medscape expert commentary, a group of physicians who held a “white coat summit” in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. The video of their summit was retweeted by President Trump and garnered millions of views before it was taken down by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
 

Sudden onset

For the new review, “we wanted to alert the public and practitioners on the potentially psychiatric risks induced by chloroquine, as it could be taken as self-medication or potentially still prescribed,” Dr. Gressier said.

“We think the format of the letter to the editor allows information to be provided in a concise and clear manner,” she added.

According to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database, 12% of reported adverse events (520 of 4,336) following the use of chloroquine that occurred between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2019 were neuropsychiatric. These events included amnesia, delirium, hallucinations, depression, and loss of consciousness, the authors write.

The researchers acknowledged that the incidence of psychiatric adverse effects associated with the use of chloroquine is “unclear in the absence of high-quality, randomized placebo-controlled trials of its safety.” Nevertheless, they pointed out that there have been reports of insomnia and depression when the drug was used as prophylaxis against malaria .

Moreover, some case series or case reports describe symptoms such as depression, anxiety, agitation, violent outburst, suicidal ideation, and psychosis in patients who have been treated with chloroquine for malaria, lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis .

“In contrast to many other psychoses, chloroquine psychosis may be more affective and include prominent visual hallucinations, symptoms of derealization, and disorders of thought, with preserved insight,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the frequency of symptoms does not appear to be connected to the cumulative dose or the duration of treatment, and the onset of psychosis or other adverse effects is usually “sudden.”

In addition, they warn that the drug’s psychiatric effects may go unnoticed, especially because COVID-19 itself has been associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms, making it hard to distinguish between symptoms caused by the illness and those caused by the drug.

Although the psychiatric symptoms typically occur early after treatment initiation, some “subtle” symptoms might persist after stopping the drug, possibly owing to its “extremely long” half-life, the authors stated.

Dr. Gressier noted that practicing clinicians should look up reports about self-medication with chloroquine “and warn their patients about the risk induced by chloroquine.”
 

Safe but ‘not benign’

Nilanjana Bose, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist at the Rheumatology Center of Houston, said she uses hydroxychloroquine “all the time” in clinical practice to treat patients with rheumatic conditions.

“I cannot comment on whether it [hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine] is a potential prophylactic or treatment for COVID-19, but I can say that, from a safety point of view, as a rheumatologist who uses hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg/day, I do not think we need to worry about serious [psychiatric] side effects,” Dr. Bose said in an interview.

Because clinicians are trying all types of possible treatments for COVID-19, “if this medication has possible efficacy, it is a great medicine from a rheumatologic perspective and is safe,” she added.

Nevertheless, the drug is “not benign, and regular side effects will be there, and of course, higher doses will cause more side effects,” said Dr. Bose, who was not involved in authoring the letter.

She counsels patients about potential psychiatric side effects of hydroxychloroquine because some of her patients have complained about irritability, worsening anxiety and depression, and difficulty sleeping.
 

Be wary

James “Jimmy” Potash, MD, MPH, Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview that the “take-home message of this letter is that serious psychiatric effects, psychotic illness in particular,” can occur in individuals who take chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

In addition, “these are potentially very concerning side effects that psychiatrists should be aware of,” noted Dr. Potash, department director and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins.

He said that one of his patients who had been “completely psychiatrically healthy” took chloroquine prophylactically prior to traveling overseas. After she began taking the drug, she had an episode of mania that resolved once she discontinued the medication and received treatment for the mania.

“If you add potential psychiatric side effects to the other side effects that can result from these medications, that adds up to a pretty important reason to be wary of taking them, particularly for the indication of COVID-19, where the level of evidence that it helps in any way is still quite weak,” Dr. Potash said.

In an interview, Remington Nevin, MD, MPH, DrPH, executive director at the Quinism Foundation, White River Junction, Vt., a nonprofit organization that supports and promotes education and research on disorders caused by poisoning by quinoline drugs; and faculty associate in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that the authors of the letter “are to be commended for their efforts in raising awareness of the potentially lasting and disabling psychiatric effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, which, as with similar effects from other synthetic quinoline antimalarials, have occasionally been overlooked or misattributed to other conditions.”

He added: “I have proposed that the chronic neuropsychiatric effects of this class of drug are best considered not as side effects but as signs and symptoms of a disorder known as chronic quinoline encephalopathy caused by poisoning of the central nervous system.”

Dr. Gressier and the other letter authors, Dr. Bose, and Dr. Potash have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nevin has been retained as a consultant and expert witness in legal cases involving claims of adverse effects from quinoline antimalarial drugs.

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

Chloroquine may be associated with serious psychiatric side effects, even in patients with no family or personal history of psychiatric disorders, a new review suggests.

In a letter to the editor published online July 28 in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the authors summarize data from several studies published as far back as 1993 and as recently as May 2020.

“In addition to previously reported side effects, chloroquine could also induce psychiatric side effects which are polymorphic and can persist even after stopping the drug,” lead author Florence Gressier, MD, PhD, CESP, Inserm, department of psychiatry, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France, said in an interview.

“In COVID-19 patients who may still be [undergoing treatment] with chloroquine, close psychiatric assessment and monitoring should be performed,” she said.
 

Heated controversy

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been at the center of heated controversy for their potential role in preventing or treating COVID-19.

Following findings of a small French study that suggested efficacy in lowering the viral load in patients with COVID-19, President Donald Trump expressed optimism regarding the role of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19, calling it a “game changer”.

Other studies, however, have called into question both the efficacy and the safety of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. On June 15, the Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization it had given in March to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine continues to be prescribed for COVID-19. For example, an article that appeared in Click2Houston on June 15 quoted the chief medical officer of Houston’s United Memorial Center as saying he plans to continue prescribing hydroxychloroquine for patients with COVID-19 until he finds a better alternative.

As discussed in a Medscape expert commentary, a group of physicians who held a “white coat summit” in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. The video of their summit was retweeted by President Trump and garnered millions of views before it was taken down by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
 

Sudden onset

For the new review, “we wanted to alert the public and practitioners on the potentially psychiatric risks induced by chloroquine, as it could be taken as self-medication or potentially still prescribed,” Dr. Gressier said.

“We think the format of the letter to the editor allows information to be provided in a concise and clear manner,” she added.

According to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database, 12% of reported adverse events (520 of 4,336) following the use of chloroquine that occurred between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2019 were neuropsychiatric. These events included amnesia, delirium, hallucinations, depression, and loss of consciousness, the authors write.

The researchers acknowledged that the incidence of psychiatric adverse effects associated with the use of chloroquine is “unclear in the absence of high-quality, randomized placebo-controlled trials of its safety.” Nevertheless, they pointed out that there have been reports of insomnia and depression when the drug was used as prophylaxis against malaria .

Moreover, some case series or case reports describe symptoms such as depression, anxiety, agitation, violent outburst, suicidal ideation, and psychosis in patients who have been treated with chloroquine for malaria, lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis .

“In contrast to many other psychoses, chloroquine psychosis may be more affective and include prominent visual hallucinations, symptoms of derealization, and disorders of thought, with preserved insight,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the frequency of symptoms does not appear to be connected to the cumulative dose or the duration of treatment, and the onset of psychosis or other adverse effects is usually “sudden.”

In addition, they warn that the drug’s psychiatric effects may go unnoticed, especially because COVID-19 itself has been associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms, making it hard to distinguish between symptoms caused by the illness and those caused by the drug.

Although the psychiatric symptoms typically occur early after treatment initiation, some “subtle” symptoms might persist after stopping the drug, possibly owing to its “extremely long” half-life, the authors stated.

Dr. Gressier noted that practicing clinicians should look up reports about self-medication with chloroquine “and warn their patients about the risk induced by chloroquine.”
 

Safe but ‘not benign’

Nilanjana Bose, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist at the Rheumatology Center of Houston, said she uses hydroxychloroquine “all the time” in clinical practice to treat patients with rheumatic conditions.

“I cannot comment on whether it [hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine] is a potential prophylactic or treatment for COVID-19, but I can say that, from a safety point of view, as a rheumatologist who uses hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg/day, I do not think we need to worry about serious [psychiatric] side effects,” Dr. Bose said in an interview.

Because clinicians are trying all types of possible treatments for COVID-19, “if this medication has possible efficacy, it is a great medicine from a rheumatologic perspective and is safe,” she added.

Nevertheless, the drug is “not benign, and regular side effects will be there, and of course, higher doses will cause more side effects,” said Dr. Bose, who was not involved in authoring the letter.

She counsels patients about potential psychiatric side effects of hydroxychloroquine because some of her patients have complained about irritability, worsening anxiety and depression, and difficulty sleeping.
 

Be wary

James “Jimmy” Potash, MD, MPH, Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview that the “take-home message of this letter is that serious psychiatric effects, psychotic illness in particular,” can occur in individuals who take chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

In addition, “these are potentially very concerning side effects that psychiatrists should be aware of,” noted Dr. Potash, department director and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins.

He said that one of his patients who had been “completely psychiatrically healthy” took chloroquine prophylactically prior to traveling overseas. After she began taking the drug, she had an episode of mania that resolved once she discontinued the medication and received treatment for the mania.

“If you add potential psychiatric side effects to the other side effects that can result from these medications, that adds up to a pretty important reason to be wary of taking them, particularly for the indication of COVID-19, where the level of evidence that it helps in any way is still quite weak,” Dr. Potash said.

In an interview, Remington Nevin, MD, MPH, DrPH, executive director at the Quinism Foundation, White River Junction, Vt., a nonprofit organization that supports and promotes education and research on disorders caused by poisoning by quinoline drugs; and faculty associate in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that the authors of the letter “are to be commended for their efforts in raising awareness of the potentially lasting and disabling psychiatric effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, which, as with similar effects from other synthetic quinoline antimalarials, have occasionally been overlooked or misattributed to other conditions.”

He added: “I have proposed that the chronic neuropsychiatric effects of this class of drug are best considered not as side effects but as signs and symptoms of a disorder known as chronic quinoline encephalopathy caused by poisoning of the central nervous system.”

Dr. Gressier and the other letter authors, Dr. Bose, and Dr. Potash have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nevin has been retained as a consultant and expert witness in legal cases involving claims of adverse effects from quinoline antimalarial drugs.

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

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

All PASI 100 responses to psoriasis therapy are not the same, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

He presented a first-of-its-kind study that potentially opens the door to a new, more rigorous standard for treatment success in psoriasis: Not simply cleared lesional skin as captured by a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 response, but also clearance of residual psoriasis signs and symptoms – as well as what he termed “molecular clearance.”

“We’ve found that clearing skin with drugs utilizing different mechanisms of action may lead to differential consequences for our patients,” observed Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and clinical trialist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

A PASI 100 response, traditionally considered an elusive goal for the great majority of patients with severe psoriasis, can now often be achieved using today’s top-tier, high-performance biologics. But Dr. Blauvelt and his coinvestigators are interested in pushing even beyond PASI 100 to a new frontier of therapeutic benefit.

He presented a secondary analysis of the previously reported VOYAGE 1 and 2 head-to-head randomized trials of guselkumab (Tremfya) versus adalimumab (Humira) for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This new analysis, which focused exclusively on PASI 100 responders by week 24, demonstrated that patients with a PASI 100 response to guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor, had significantly fewer persistent symptoms and signs of psoriasis than those whose skin clearance was attained using adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.

Moreover, the investigators showed that the gene expression profile of PASI 100 responders who were free of signs and symptoms was more normalized than that of patients with residual symptoms despite their cleared skin.

The analysis included 16 participants in the VOYAGE trials who achieved PASI 100 at week 24 on guselkumab and 5 who did so on adalimumab. At baseline and again at week 24, these individuals completed the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Also, biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were obtained at baseline and of cleared lesional skin at week 24 for transcriptomic microarray analysis of the expression of many thousands of genes.
 

Persistent psoriasis symptoms despite cleared skin

The PSSD involves patient ratings of various psoriasis symptoms and signs. Total scores can range from 0 (symptom- and sign-free) up to 100. At week 24, a significantly higher proportion of guselkumab-treated PASI 100 responders had a total PSSD score of zero: 55%, versus 43% in the adalimumab group. This was consistently true across the board for each of the individual signs and symptoms assessed. For example, 61% of the guselkumab group gave themselves a zero for itch, as did 50% of the adalimumab group. Sixty-four percent on guselkumab and 52% on adalimumab reported being free of redness. And 78% of the guselkumab group reported being pain-free, compared with 69% with adalimumab, Dr. Blauvelt reported.

Gene expression analysis

At baseline, more than 2,300 dysregulated genes were identified in lesional skin while functioning normally in nonlesional skin. The great majority of these initially dysregulated genes became normalized in cleared lesional skin in PASI 100 responders at week 24. However, 25 of the genes remained dysregulated in cleared lesional skin, meaning they displayed less than 75% of normal function. Ten of these 25 genes with dysregulated expression at follow-up showed abnormal function in patients with residual symptoms despite cleared skin, but they functioned normally in those without persistent symptoms. This raises the possibility that the residual symptoms of psoriasis were attributable to the abnormal gene functioning, according to Dr. Blauvelt.

Of note, 9 of the 10 dysregulated genes in cleared lesional skin of patients with residual symptoms were present in the adalimumab group; these included two genes localized to the epidermal differentiation complex as well as the psoriasis-specific proline-rich 9 gene known as PRR9, which is induced by IL-17A. In contrast, only four genes, none of which were localized to the epidermal differentiation complex, were insufficiently normalized in the cleared lesional skin of guselkumab-treated PASI-100 responders.

“Nothing like this analysis has ever been done before,” the dermatologist observed. “It’s a pilot study. Perhaps with more data like this, we’ll be using this type of information in clinical practice to go beyond clearing patients’ skin.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a scientific advisor to and paid clinical investigator for Janssen, which sponsored the study, as well as for roughly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

All PASI 100 responses to psoriasis therapy are not the same, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

He presented a first-of-its-kind study that potentially opens the door to a new, more rigorous standard for treatment success in psoriasis: Not simply cleared lesional skin as captured by a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 response, but also clearance of residual psoriasis signs and symptoms – as well as what he termed “molecular clearance.”

“We’ve found that clearing skin with drugs utilizing different mechanisms of action may lead to differential consequences for our patients,” observed Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and clinical trialist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

A PASI 100 response, traditionally considered an elusive goal for the great majority of patients with severe psoriasis, can now often be achieved using today’s top-tier, high-performance biologics. But Dr. Blauvelt and his coinvestigators are interested in pushing even beyond PASI 100 to a new frontier of therapeutic benefit.

He presented a secondary analysis of the previously reported VOYAGE 1 and 2 head-to-head randomized trials of guselkumab (Tremfya) versus adalimumab (Humira) for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This new analysis, which focused exclusively on PASI 100 responders by week 24, demonstrated that patients with a PASI 100 response to guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor, had significantly fewer persistent symptoms and signs of psoriasis than those whose skin clearance was attained using adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.

Moreover, the investigators showed that the gene expression profile of PASI 100 responders who were free of signs and symptoms was more normalized than that of patients with residual symptoms despite their cleared skin.

The analysis included 16 participants in the VOYAGE trials who achieved PASI 100 at week 24 on guselkumab and 5 who did so on adalimumab. At baseline and again at week 24, these individuals completed the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Also, biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were obtained at baseline and of cleared lesional skin at week 24 for transcriptomic microarray analysis of the expression of many thousands of genes.
 

Persistent psoriasis symptoms despite cleared skin

The PSSD involves patient ratings of various psoriasis symptoms and signs. Total scores can range from 0 (symptom- and sign-free) up to 100. At week 24, a significantly higher proportion of guselkumab-treated PASI 100 responders had a total PSSD score of zero: 55%, versus 43% in the adalimumab group. This was consistently true across the board for each of the individual signs and symptoms assessed. For example, 61% of the guselkumab group gave themselves a zero for itch, as did 50% of the adalimumab group. Sixty-four percent on guselkumab and 52% on adalimumab reported being free of redness. And 78% of the guselkumab group reported being pain-free, compared with 69% with adalimumab, Dr. Blauvelt reported.

Gene expression analysis

At baseline, more than 2,300 dysregulated genes were identified in lesional skin while functioning normally in nonlesional skin. The great majority of these initially dysregulated genes became normalized in cleared lesional skin in PASI 100 responders at week 24. However, 25 of the genes remained dysregulated in cleared lesional skin, meaning they displayed less than 75% of normal function. Ten of these 25 genes with dysregulated expression at follow-up showed abnormal function in patients with residual symptoms despite cleared skin, but they functioned normally in those without persistent symptoms. This raises the possibility that the residual symptoms of psoriasis were attributable to the abnormal gene functioning, according to Dr. Blauvelt.

Of note, 9 of the 10 dysregulated genes in cleared lesional skin of patients with residual symptoms were present in the adalimumab group; these included two genes localized to the epidermal differentiation complex as well as the psoriasis-specific proline-rich 9 gene known as PRR9, which is induced by IL-17A. In contrast, only four genes, none of which were localized to the epidermal differentiation complex, were insufficiently normalized in the cleared lesional skin of guselkumab-treated PASI-100 responders.

“Nothing like this analysis has ever been done before,” the dermatologist observed. “It’s a pilot study. Perhaps with more data like this, we’ll be using this type of information in clinical practice to go beyond clearing patients’ skin.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a scientific advisor to and paid clinical investigator for Janssen, which sponsored the study, as well as for roughly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

All PASI 100 responses to psoriasis therapy are not the same, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

He presented a first-of-its-kind study that potentially opens the door to a new, more rigorous standard for treatment success in psoriasis: Not simply cleared lesional skin as captured by a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 response, but also clearance of residual psoriasis signs and symptoms – as well as what he termed “molecular clearance.”

“We’ve found that clearing skin with drugs utilizing different mechanisms of action may lead to differential consequences for our patients,” observed Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and clinical trialist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

A PASI 100 response, traditionally considered an elusive goal for the great majority of patients with severe psoriasis, can now often be achieved using today’s top-tier, high-performance biologics. But Dr. Blauvelt and his coinvestigators are interested in pushing even beyond PASI 100 to a new frontier of therapeutic benefit.

He presented a secondary analysis of the previously reported VOYAGE 1 and 2 head-to-head randomized trials of guselkumab (Tremfya) versus adalimumab (Humira) for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This new analysis, which focused exclusively on PASI 100 responders by week 24, demonstrated that patients with a PASI 100 response to guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor, had significantly fewer persistent symptoms and signs of psoriasis than those whose skin clearance was attained using adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.

Moreover, the investigators showed that the gene expression profile of PASI 100 responders who were free of signs and symptoms was more normalized than that of patients with residual symptoms despite their cleared skin.

The analysis included 16 participants in the VOYAGE trials who achieved PASI 100 at week 24 on guselkumab and 5 who did so on adalimumab. At baseline and again at week 24, these individuals completed the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Also, biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were obtained at baseline and of cleared lesional skin at week 24 for transcriptomic microarray analysis of the expression of many thousands of genes.
 

Persistent psoriasis symptoms despite cleared skin

The PSSD involves patient ratings of various psoriasis symptoms and signs. Total scores can range from 0 (symptom- and sign-free) up to 100. At week 24, a significantly higher proportion of guselkumab-treated PASI 100 responders had a total PSSD score of zero: 55%, versus 43% in the adalimumab group. This was consistently true across the board for each of the individual signs and symptoms assessed. For example, 61% of the guselkumab group gave themselves a zero for itch, as did 50% of the adalimumab group. Sixty-four percent on guselkumab and 52% on adalimumab reported being free of redness. And 78% of the guselkumab group reported being pain-free, compared with 69% with adalimumab, Dr. Blauvelt reported.

Gene expression analysis

At baseline, more than 2,300 dysregulated genes were identified in lesional skin while functioning normally in nonlesional skin. The great majority of these initially dysregulated genes became normalized in cleared lesional skin in PASI 100 responders at week 24. However, 25 of the genes remained dysregulated in cleared lesional skin, meaning they displayed less than 75% of normal function. Ten of these 25 genes with dysregulated expression at follow-up showed abnormal function in patients with residual symptoms despite cleared skin, but they functioned normally in those without persistent symptoms. This raises the possibility that the residual symptoms of psoriasis were attributable to the abnormal gene functioning, according to Dr. Blauvelt.

Of note, 9 of the 10 dysregulated genes in cleared lesional skin of patients with residual symptoms were present in the adalimumab group; these included two genes localized to the epidermal differentiation complex as well as the psoriasis-specific proline-rich 9 gene known as PRR9, which is induced by IL-17A. In contrast, only four genes, none of which were localized to the epidermal differentiation complex, were insufficiently normalized in the cleared lesional skin of guselkumab-treated PASI-100 responders.

“Nothing like this analysis has ever been done before,” the dermatologist observed. “It’s a pilot study. Perhaps with more data like this, we’ll be using this type of information in clinical practice to go beyond clearing patients’ skin.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a scientific advisor to and paid clinical investigator for Janssen, which sponsored the study, as well as for roughly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Cachexia developed in 56% of adults with systemic lupus erythematosus over a 5-year period, and 18% did not recover their weight, based on data from more than 2,000 patients.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Although weight loss is common in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), cachexia, a disorder of involuntary weight loss, is largely undescribed in SLE patients, wrote George Stojan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Cachexia has been described in a range of disorders, including heart failure, renal disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, they said. “Cachexia has been shown to lead to progressive functional impairment, treatment-related complications, poor quality of life, and increased mortality,” they added.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators reviewed data from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, consisting of all SLE patients seen at a single center who are followed at least quarterly.

The study population included 2,452 SLE patients older than 18 years who had their weight assessed at each clinic visit. The average follow-up period was 7.75 years, and the average number of weight measurements per patient was nearly 24.

Cachexia was defined as a 5% stable weight loss in 6 months without starvation relative to the average weight in all prior cohort visits; and/or weight loss of more than 2% without starvation relative to the average weight in all prior cohort visits in addition to a body mass index less than 20 kg/m².

Overall, the risk for cachexia within 5 years of entering the study was significantly higher in patients with a BMI less than 20, current steroid use, vasculitis, lupus nephritis, serositis, hematologic lupus, positive anti-double strand DNA (anti-dsDNA), anti-Smith (anti-Sm), and antiribonucleoprotein (anti-RNP), the researchers noted. After adjustment for prednisone use, cachexia remained significantly associated with lupus nephritis, vasculitis, serositis, and hematologic lupus.

Future organ damage including cataracts, retinal change or optic atrophy, cognitive impairment, cerebrovascular accidents, cranial or peripheral neuropathy, pulmonary hypertension, pleural fibrosis, angina or coronary bypass, bowel infarction or resection, osteoporosis, avascular necrosis, and premature gonadal failure were significantly more likely among patients with intermittent cachexia, compared with those with continuous or no cachexia. Patients with continuous cachexia were significantly more likely to experience an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 50 mL/min/1.73 m², proteinuria greater than 3.5 g/day, and end-stage renal disease.

The patients who never developed cachexia were significantly less likely to develop malignancies, diabetes, valvular disease, or cardiomyopathy than were those who did have cachexia, the researchers said.

The mechanisms of action for cachexia in SLE remain unclear, but studies in cancer patients may provide some guidance, the researchers noted. “Tumors secrete a range of procachexia factors thought to be unique to cancer-related cachexia, and colloquially termed the ‘tumor secretome,’ ” they said. “Every single proinflammatory cytokine mentioned as part of the tumor secretome has a role in lupus pathogenesis,” suggesting a possible common pathway to cachexia across different diseases, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the use of BMI to measure weight “since BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat,” the researchers noted. “Ideally, cachexia would be defined as sarcopenia based on body composition evaluation with a dual x-ray absorptiometry,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 2. doi: 10.1002/acr.24395.

Cachexia developed in 56% of adults with systemic lupus erythematosus over a 5-year period, and 18% did not recover their weight, based on data from more than 2,000 patients.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Although weight loss is common in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), cachexia, a disorder of involuntary weight loss, is largely undescribed in SLE patients, wrote George Stojan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Cachexia has been described in a range of disorders, including heart failure, renal disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, they said. “Cachexia has been shown to lead to progressive functional impairment, treatment-related complications, poor quality of life, and increased mortality,” they added.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators reviewed data from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, consisting of all SLE patients seen at a single center who are followed at least quarterly.

The study population included 2,452 SLE patients older than 18 years who had their weight assessed at each clinic visit. The average follow-up period was 7.75 years, and the average number of weight measurements per patient was nearly 24.

Cachexia was defined as a 5% stable weight loss in 6 months without starvation relative to the average weight in all prior cohort visits; and/or weight loss of more than 2% without starvation relative to the average weight in all prior cohort visits in addition to a body mass index less than 20 kg/m².

Overall, the risk for cachexia within 5 years of entering the study was significantly higher in patients with a BMI less than 20, current steroid use, vasculitis, lupus nephritis, serositis, hematologic lupus, positive anti-double strand DNA (anti-dsDNA), anti-Smith (anti-Sm), and antiribonucleoprotein (anti-RNP), the researchers noted. After adjustment for prednisone use, cachexia remained significantly associated with lupus nephritis, vasculitis, serositis, and hematologic lupus.

Future organ damage including cataracts, retinal change or optic atrophy, cognitive impairment, cerebrovascular accidents, cranial or peripheral neuropathy, pulmonary hypertension, pleural fibrosis, angina or coronary bypass, bowel infarction or resection, osteoporosis, avascular necrosis, and premature gonadal failure were significantly more likely among patients with intermittent cachexia, compared with those with continuous or no cachexia. Patients with continuous cachexia were significantly more likely to experience an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 50 mL/min/1.73 m², proteinuria greater than 3.5 g/day, and end-stage renal disease.

The patients who never developed cachexia were significantly less likely to develop malignancies, diabetes, valvular disease, or cardiomyopathy than were those who did have cachexia, the researchers said.

The mechanisms of action for cachexia in SLE remain unclear, but studies in cancer patients may provide some guidance, the researchers noted. “Tumors secrete a range of procachexia factors thought to be unique to cancer-related cachexia, and colloquially termed the ‘tumor secretome,’ ” they said. “Every single proinflammatory cytokine mentioned as part of the tumor secretome has a role in lupus pathogenesis,” suggesting a possible common pathway to cachexia across different diseases, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the use of BMI to measure weight “since BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat,” the researchers noted. “Ideally, cachexia would be defined as sarcopenia based on body composition evaluation with a dual x-ray absorptiometry,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 2. doi: 10.1002/acr.24395.

Cachexia developed in 56% of adults with systemic lupus erythematosus over a 5-year period, and 18% did not recover their weight, based on data from more than 2,000 patients.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Although weight loss is common in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), cachexia, a disorder of involuntary weight loss, is largely undescribed in SLE patients, wrote George Stojan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Cachexia has been described in a range of disorders, including heart failure, renal disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, they said. “Cachexia has been shown to lead to progressive functional impairment, treatment-related complications, poor quality of life, and increased mortality,” they added.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators reviewed data from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, consisting of all SLE patients seen at a single center who are followed at least quarterly.

The study population included 2,452 SLE patients older than 18 years who had their weight assessed at each clinic visit. The average follow-up period was 7.75 years, and the average number of weight measurements per patient was nearly 24.

Cachexia was defined as a 5% stable weight loss in 6 months without starvation relative to the average weight in all prior cohort visits; and/or weight loss of more than 2% without starvation relative to the average weight in all prior cohort visits in addition to a body mass index less than 20 kg/m².

Overall, the risk for cachexia within 5 years of entering the study was significantly higher in patients with a BMI less than 20, current steroid use, vasculitis, lupus nephritis, serositis, hematologic lupus, positive anti-double strand DNA (anti-dsDNA), anti-Smith (anti-Sm), and antiribonucleoprotein (anti-RNP), the researchers noted. After adjustment for prednisone use, cachexia remained significantly associated with lupus nephritis, vasculitis, serositis, and hematologic lupus.

Future organ damage including cataracts, retinal change or optic atrophy, cognitive impairment, cerebrovascular accidents, cranial or peripheral neuropathy, pulmonary hypertension, pleural fibrosis, angina or coronary bypass, bowel infarction or resection, osteoporosis, avascular necrosis, and premature gonadal failure were significantly more likely among patients with intermittent cachexia, compared with those with continuous or no cachexia. Patients with continuous cachexia were significantly more likely to experience an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 50 mL/min/1.73 m², proteinuria greater than 3.5 g/day, and end-stage renal disease.

The patients who never developed cachexia were significantly less likely to develop malignancies, diabetes, valvular disease, or cardiomyopathy than were those who did have cachexia, the researchers said.

The mechanisms of action for cachexia in SLE remain unclear, but studies in cancer patients may provide some guidance, the researchers noted. “Tumors secrete a range of procachexia factors thought to be unique to cancer-related cachexia, and colloquially termed the ‘tumor secretome,’ ” they said. “Every single proinflammatory cytokine mentioned as part of the tumor secretome has a role in lupus pathogenesis,” suggesting a possible common pathway to cachexia across different diseases, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the use of BMI to measure weight “since BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat,” the researchers noted. “Ideally, cachexia would be defined as sarcopenia based on body composition evaluation with a dual x-ray absorptiometry,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 2. doi: 10.1002/acr.24395.

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.

Less than half of internal medicine residency program directors report formal curricula on the topic of health disparities, according to findings of a survey of medical directors and residents across the United States.

Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine going back to 2002 calling for increased education on the topic for health care providers, data from a 2012 survey showed that only 17% of internal medicine programs had a health disparities curriculum, wrote Denise M. Dupras, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

To describe internal medicine residency training programs’ curricula and educational experiences on health disparities and to determine residents’ perceptions of training, the researchers designed a cross-sectional survey study including 227 program directors and 22,723 internal medicine residents. The survey was conducted from August to November 2015.

Overall, 91 program directors (40%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but only 16 of them described the quality of their education as very good or excellent. In 56% of the programs, outcomes of the curriculum were not measured.

A majority (90%) of the programs included racial/ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status in their curricula, 58% included information about limited English proficiency, and 53% included information about gender identity and sexual orientation.

Reported barriers to curriculum development in 132 programs that did not have a health disparities curriculum included lack of time in the current curriculum, insufficient faculty skill to teach the topic, lack of institutional support, and lack of faculty interest, the researchers noted.

A total of 13,251 residents (70%) reported receiving some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities over 3 years of training, and 10,494 (80%) of these rated the quality as very good or excellent. “Residents who cared for a larger proportion of underserved patients perceived that they received health disparities training at a higher rate,” the researchers wrote. However, increased care of at-risk populations does not necessarily translate into increased knowledge and skills. “Our finding that residents’ rating of the quality of their training was not associated with the presence of a curriculum in health disparities in their program also raises a concern that perceptions may overestimate the acquisition of needed skills,” they added.

The major limitation of the study was “that residents were not asked directly if they were exposed to a curriculum in health disparities but rather if they received training in the care of patients who would be at risk, which raises the concern that we cannot distinguish between their recognition of a formal and informal curriculum,” the researchers noted. In addition, the survey could not confirm that program directors were aware of all training. “Furthermore, because the survey items were embedded in larger program director survey, we were limited in the ability to ask them to define more specifically the components of their health disparities curricula,” they wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large and comprehensive study population, and highlight not only the need for standardized health disparities curricula, but also the need for research to determine the most effective domains for such curricula in graduate medical education, they emphasized.

“There are opportunities to explore partnerships among residencies, institutional clinical practices, and communities for productive collaborations around disparities-related quality improvement projects to address gaps in health care that are specific to the populations they serve,” they concluded.

The surveys were conducted in 2015 and the comparative work in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increased concerns about disparities in health care, Dr. Dupras said in an interview.

“We conducted the survey because we recognized that health disparities were still prevalent in our society despite calls to improve the education of our learners to address them. We wanted to determine what our programs were providing for educational curriculum and what our learners were experiencing,” she said.

“We did not know what the surveys would show, so I cannot say that we were surprised by the findings,” said Dr. Dupras. “One of the challenges in interpreting our results is inherent in studies that rely on surveys. We cannot know how those filling out the surveys interpret the questions.” The study results yield several messages.

“First, residency training programs have opportunities to do a better job in developing educational opportunities related to health disparities; second, residents learn in the context of care and we must optimize education around these experiences; third, every patient is different. It is time to move towards cultural humility, since the risk for disparities is not associated with one patient characteristic, but composed of multiple factors,” she said.

“Given that 5 years has passed since our original survey, it would be important to repeat the survey and consider expanding it to include other training programs that provide frontline care, such as family medicine and pediatrics,” Dr. Dupras noted.

Dr. Dupras and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Dupras DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12757.