Neurology Reviews

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Researchers have identified five cognitive phenotypes among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The lead researcher described the clinical characteristics and MRI findings unique to each phenotype during a lecture at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Between 40% and 70% of patients with MS have cognitive impairment, and the current results emphasize the importance of cognitive evaluation in clinical assessment, according to the investigators. “The identification of cognitive profiles can drive tailored rehabilitative strategies and introduce a new level in the evidence of disease activity assessment,” said Ermelinda De Meo, MD, a neurologist and PhD student at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. Physical disability has been a major influence on treatment choices to date, but neurologists should consider that patients with minimal physical disability may have cognitive impairment, she added.

Information processing speed and episodic memory are the most commonly impaired cognitive functions in patients with MS, but executive function, verbal fluency, and visuospatial abilities also can be affected. Defining the neuroanatomical basis of cognitive dysfunction and developing effective strategies for rehabilitation requires a clearer understanding of cognitive deficits on an individual level, said Dr. De Meo.
 

A battery of clinical and imaging tests

She and her colleagues analyzed 1,212 patients with all forms of MS who presented to eight Italian centers. They also included 196 age-, sex-, and education-matched controls in their study. Patients underwent evaluation with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and a neuropsychological assessment that included Rao’s Brief Repeatable Battery and Stroop Test. The investigators also administered the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

A subset of 172 patients with MS and 50 healthy controls underwent 3-T MRI. Dr. De Meo and colleagues examined T2 hyperintense and T1 hypointense lesion volumes. In addition, they quantified normalized brain volume, white matter volume, and gray matter volume and performed deep gray matter segmentation.

The subset of patients with MS who underwent MRI was not significantly different from the full cohort of patients with MS in the study, said Dr. De Meo. Because of the relatively small number of subjects who underwent MRI, she and her colleagues used simple MRI measures that are well validated, highly reproducible, and less susceptible to measurement error. “We know that advanced MRI technique could provide additional insights about the neural bases of these phenotypes. However, we can consider our MRI results as a starting point to better address future MRI studies,” she said.
 

Phenotypes had specific neural bases

The mean age did not differ significantly between patients (41.1 years) and controls (40.4 years). The sex ratio also was similar in both groups. Patients’ median EDSS score was 2.0, mean disease duration was 10.5 years, mean FSS score was 14.9, and mean MADRS score was 10.1.

The five cognitive phenotypes among patients with MS were characterized by preserved cognition (19%), mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment (30%), mild multidomain impairment (19%), severe attention or executive impairment with mild impairment of other domains (14%), and severe multidomain impairment (18%). Compared with patients with other phenotypes, those with preserved cognition and those with mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment were younger and had lower clinical disability and shorter disease duration. Patients with severe multidomain impairment had greater depressive symptoms. Patients with severe attention or executive phenotypes had higher FSS scores.

On MRI, patients with preserved cognition had lower thalamic volume than healthy controls. The researchers compared all other phenotypes to these two groups. Patients with mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment had reduced hippocampal volume. Patients with mild multidomain impairment had reduced cortical gray matter volume. Patients with severe attention or executive impairment had higher T2 lesion load. Patients with severe multidomain phenotypes had a broader pattern of atrophy, including decreased volume in the gray matter, white matter, thalamus, hippocampus, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.

“The present findings suggest that specific neural bases can be detected for each phenotype,” said Dr. De Meo. “Advanced and multimodal MRI techniques of analysis could help individuate the neural circuits and the neurotransmitter involved, also suggesting potential targets for the pharmacological treatment of cognitive decline.”
 

A need for longitudinal cohort studies

The study by Dr. De Meo and colleagues continues previous investigations of cognitive phenotypes in MS, which originally considered cognition to be either intact or impaired. Further research could “inform the development of targeted treatments for cognitive dysfunction in MS, which will ultimately bring us closer to a precision medicine model,” said Victoria M. Leavitt, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Clearly, we have to acknowledge that cognitive impairment is not a one-size-fits-all problem,” she added. “If a memory problem develops as a downstream consequence of language issues, targeting the hippocampus may not be effective. Separating patients into cognitive phenotype groups may be a key to understanding and identifying neural-level differences that underlie diverse cognitive issues.”

The evolution of cognitive changes over time must be understood clearly, because patients may develop memory impairment by separate pathways (e.g., focal lesions that precipitate hippocampal atrophy versus cortical thinning in parietal regions that result in white-matter disconnections among language regions), said Dr. Leavitt. “Longitudinal cohort studies and ... testable mechanistic models that incorporate multimodal neuroimaging metrics are an essential starting point. Machine-learning methods may also be a useful tool for beginning to look at how these different neuroimaging modalities work together dynamically to yield divergent cognitive phenotypes.”

The study was not supported by external funding. Dr. De Meo reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Leavitt also reported no relevant disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: De Meo E et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract YI02.03.

Researchers have identified five cognitive phenotypes among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The lead researcher described the clinical characteristics and MRI findings unique to each phenotype during a lecture at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Between 40% and 70% of patients with MS have cognitive impairment, and the current results emphasize the importance of cognitive evaluation in clinical assessment, according to the investigators. “The identification of cognitive profiles can drive tailored rehabilitative strategies and introduce a new level in the evidence of disease activity assessment,” said Ermelinda De Meo, MD, a neurologist and PhD student at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. Physical disability has been a major influence on treatment choices to date, but neurologists should consider that patients with minimal physical disability may have cognitive impairment, she added.

Information processing speed and episodic memory are the most commonly impaired cognitive functions in patients with MS, but executive function, verbal fluency, and visuospatial abilities also can be affected. Defining the neuroanatomical basis of cognitive dysfunction and developing effective strategies for rehabilitation requires a clearer understanding of cognitive deficits on an individual level, said Dr. De Meo.
 

A battery of clinical and imaging tests

She and her colleagues analyzed 1,212 patients with all forms of MS who presented to eight Italian centers. They also included 196 age-, sex-, and education-matched controls in their study. Patients underwent evaluation with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and a neuropsychological assessment that included Rao’s Brief Repeatable Battery and Stroop Test. The investigators also administered the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

A subset of 172 patients with MS and 50 healthy controls underwent 3-T MRI. Dr. De Meo and colleagues examined T2 hyperintense and T1 hypointense lesion volumes. In addition, they quantified normalized brain volume, white matter volume, and gray matter volume and performed deep gray matter segmentation.

The subset of patients with MS who underwent MRI was not significantly different from the full cohort of patients with MS in the study, said Dr. De Meo. Because of the relatively small number of subjects who underwent MRI, she and her colleagues used simple MRI measures that are well validated, highly reproducible, and less susceptible to measurement error. “We know that advanced MRI technique could provide additional insights about the neural bases of these phenotypes. However, we can consider our MRI results as a starting point to better address future MRI studies,” she said.
 

Phenotypes had specific neural bases

The mean age did not differ significantly between patients (41.1 years) and controls (40.4 years). The sex ratio also was similar in both groups. Patients’ median EDSS score was 2.0, mean disease duration was 10.5 years, mean FSS score was 14.9, and mean MADRS score was 10.1.

The five cognitive phenotypes among patients with MS were characterized by preserved cognition (19%), mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment (30%), mild multidomain impairment (19%), severe attention or executive impairment with mild impairment of other domains (14%), and severe multidomain impairment (18%). Compared with patients with other phenotypes, those with preserved cognition and those with mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment were younger and had lower clinical disability and shorter disease duration. Patients with severe multidomain impairment had greater depressive symptoms. Patients with severe attention or executive phenotypes had higher FSS scores.

On MRI, patients with preserved cognition had lower thalamic volume than healthy controls. The researchers compared all other phenotypes to these two groups. Patients with mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment had reduced hippocampal volume. Patients with mild multidomain impairment had reduced cortical gray matter volume. Patients with severe attention or executive impairment had higher T2 lesion load. Patients with severe multidomain phenotypes had a broader pattern of atrophy, including decreased volume in the gray matter, white matter, thalamus, hippocampus, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.

“The present findings suggest that specific neural bases can be detected for each phenotype,” said Dr. De Meo. “Advanced and multimodal MRI techniques of analysis could help individuate the neural circuits and the neurotransmitter involved, also suggesting potential targets for the pharmacological treatment of cognitive decline.”
 

A need for longitudinal cohort studies

The study by Dr. De Meo and colleagues continues previous investigations of cognitive phenotypes in MS, which originally considered cognition to be either intact or impaired. Further research could “inform the development of targeted treatments for cognitive dysfunction in MS, which will ultimately bring us closer to a precision medicine model,” said Victoria M. Leavitt, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Clearly, we have to acknowledge that cognitive impairment is not a one-size-fits-all problem,” she added. “If a memory problem develops as a downstream consequence of language issues, targeting the hippocampus may not be effective. Separating patients into cognitive phenotype groups may be a key to understanding and identifying neural-level differences that underlie diverse cognitive issues.”

The evolution of cognitive changes over time must be understood clearly, because patients may develop memory impairment by separate pathways (e.g., focal lesions that precipitate hippocampal atrophy versus cortical thinning in parietal regions that result in white-matter disconnections among language regions), said Dr. Leavitt. “Longitudinal cohort studies and ... testable mechanistic models that incorporate multimodal neuroimaging metrics are an essential starting point. Machine-learning methods may also be a useful tool for beginning to look at how these different neuroimaging modalities work together dynamically to yield divergent cognitive phenotypes.”

The study was not supported by external funding. Dr. De Meo reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Leavitt also reported no relevant disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: De Meo E et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract YI02.03.

Researchers have identified five cognitive phenotypes among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The lead researcher described the clinical characteristics and MRI findings unique to each phenotype during a lecture at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Between 40% and 70% of patients with MS have cognitive impairment, and the current results emphasize the importance of cognitive evaluation in clinical assessment, according to the investigators. “The identification of cognitive profiles can drive tailored rehabilitative strategies and introduce a new level in the evidence of disease activity assessment,” said Ermelinda De Meo, MD, a neurologist and PhD student at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. Physical disability has been a major influence on treatment choices to date, but neurologists should consider that patients with minimal physical disability may have cognitive impairment, she added.

Information processing speed and episodic memory are the most commonly impaired cognitive functions in patients with MS, but executive function, verbal fluency, and visuospatial abilities also can be affected. Defining the neuroanatomical basis of cognitive dysfunction and developing effective strategies for rehabilitation requires a clearer understanding of cognitive deficits on an individual level, said Dr. De Meo.
 

A battery of clinical and imaging tests

She and her colleagues analyzed 1,212 patients with all forms of MS who presented to eight Italian centers. They also included 196 age-, sex-, and education-matched controls in their study. Patients underwent evaluation with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and a neuropsychological assessment that included Rao’s Brief Repeatable Battery and Stroop Test. The investigators also administered the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

A subset of 172 patients with MS and 50 healthy controls underwent 3-T MRI. Dr. De Meo and colleagues examined T2 hyperintense and T1 hypointense lesion volumes. In addition, they quantified normalized brain volume, white matter volume, and gray matter volume and performed deep gray matter segmentation.

The subset of patients with MS who underwent MRI was not significantly different from the full cohort of patients with MS in the study, said Dr. De Meo. Because of the relatively small number of subjects who underwent MRI, she and her colleagues used simple MRI measures that are well validated, highly reproducible, and less susceptible to measurement error. “We know that advanced MRI technique could provide additional insights about the neural bases of these phenotypes. However, we can consider our MRI results as a starting point to better address future MRI studies,” she said.
 

Phenotypes had specific neural bases

The mean age did not differ significantly between patients (41.1 years) and controls (40.4 years). The sex ratio also was similar in both groups. Patients’ median EDSS score was 2.0, mean disease duration was 10.5 years, mean FSS score was 14.9, and mean MADRS score was 10.1.

The five cognitive phenotypes among patients with MS were characterized by preserved cognition (19%), mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment (30%), mild multidomain impairment (19%), severe attention or executive impairment with mild impairment of other domains (14%), and severe multidomain impairment (18%). Compared with patients with other phenotypes, those with preserved cognition and those with mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment were younger and had lower clinical disability and shorter disease duration. Patients with severe multidomain impairment had greater depressive symptoms. Patients with severe attention or executive phenotypes had higher FSS scores.

On MRI, patients with preserved cognition had lower thalamic volume than healthy controls. The researchers compared all other phenotypes to these two groups. Patients with mild verbal memory or semantic fluency impairment had reduced hippocampal volume. Patients with mild multidomain impairment had reduced cortical gray matter volume. Patients with severe attention or executive impairment had higher T2 lesion load. Patients with severe multidomain phenotypes had a broader pattern of atrophy, including decreased volume in the gray matter, white matter, thalamus, hippocampus, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.

“The present findings suggest that specific neural bases can be detected for each phenotype,” said Dr. De Meo. “Advanced and multimodal MRI techniques of analysis could help individuate the neural circuits and the neurotransmitter involved, also suggesting potential targets for the pharmacological treatment of cognitive decline.”
 

A need for longitudinal cohort studies

The study by Dr. De Meo and colleagues continues previous investigations of cognitive phenotypes in MS, which originally considered cognition to be either intact or impaired. Further research could “inform the development of targeted treatments for cognitive dysfunction in MS, which will ultimately bring us closer to a precision medicine model,” said Victoria M. Leavitt, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Clearly, we have to acknowledge that cognitive impairment is not a one-size-fits-all problem,” she added. “If a memory problem develops as a downstream consequence of language issues, targeting the hippocampus may not be effective. Separating patients into cognitive phenotype groups may be a key to understanding and identifying neural-level differences that underlie diverse cognitive issues.”

The evolution of cognitive changes over time must be understood clearly, because patients may develop memory impairment by separate pathways (e.g., focal lesions that precipitate hippocampal atrophy versus cortical thinning in parietal regions that result in white-matter disconnections among language regions), said Dr. Leavitt. “Longitudinal cohort studies and ... testable mechanistic models that incorporate multimodal neuroimaging metrics are an essential starting point. Machine-learning methods may also be a useful tool for beginning to look at how these different neuroimaging modalities work together dynamically to yield divergent cognitive phenotypes.”

The study was not supported by external funding. Dr. De Meo reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Leavitt also reported no relevant disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: De Meo E et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract YI02.03.

“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.

I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.

The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.

The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.

Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.

Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.

This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.

No amount of technological wizardry is going to make it easier to find meaning in a meaningless note, contact someone who isn’t listening, or hear from someone who isn’t talking.

Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.

I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.

The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.

The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.

Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.

Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.

This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.

No amount of technological wizardry is going to make it easier to find meaning in a meaningless note, contact someone who isn’t listening, or hear from someone who isn’t talking.

Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.

I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.

The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.

The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.

Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.

Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.

This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.

No amount of technological wizardry is going to make it easier to find meaning in a meaningless note, contact someone who isn’t listening, or hear from someone who isn’t talking.

Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Almost a quarter of adults in the United States are very concerned about access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a survey conducted Aug. 7-26.

Nationally, 23.8% of respondents said that they were very concerned about being able to receive care during the pandemic, and another 27.4% said that they were somewhat concerned. Just under a quarter, 24.3%, said they were not very concerned, while 20.4% were not at all concerned, the COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States reported after surveying 21,196 adults.

At the state level, Mississippi had the most adults (35.5%) who were very concerned about their access to care, followed by Texas (32.7%) and Nevada (32.4%). The residents of Montana were least likely (10.5%) to be very concerned, with Vermont next at 11.6% and Wyoming slightly higher at 13.8%. Montana also had the highest proportion of adults, 30.2%, who were not at all concerned, the consortium’s data show.

When asked about getting the coronavirus themselves, 67.8% of U.S. adults came down on the concerned side (33.3% somewhat and 34.5% very concerned) versus 30.8% who were not concerned (18.6% were not very concerned; 12.2% were not concerned at all.). Respondents’ concern was higher for their family members’ risk of getting coronavirus: 30.2% were somewhat concerned and 47.6% were very concerned, the consortium said.

Among many other topics, respondents were asked how closely they had followed recommended health guidelines in the last week, with the two extremes shown here:

• Avoiding contact with other people: 49.3% very closely, 4.8% not at all closely.
• Frequently washing hands: 74.7% very, 1.6% not at all.
• Disinfecting often-touched surfaces: 54.4% very, 4.3% not at all.
• Wearing a face mask in public: 75.7% very, 3.5% not at all.

The consortium is a joint project of the Network Science Institute of Northeastern University; the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy of Harvard University; Harvard Medical School; the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University; and the department of political science at Northwestern University. The project is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Three previously described clinical phenotypes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been validated in a large and diverse Hispanic/Latino community-based population for the first time, according to findings presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The three OSA symptom profiles present in this population – labeled “minimally symptomatic,” “disturbed sleep,” and “daytime sleepiness” – are consistent with recent findings from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium, which were published in Sleep, but there are notable differences in the prevalence of these clusters, with the minimally symptomatic cluster much more prevalent than in prior research, reported Kevin Gonzalez, of the University of California, San Diego.

“Other biopsychosocial factors may be contributing to OSA phenotypes among Hispanics and Latinos,” Mr. Gonzalez said in his presentation. Prior research to characterize the heterogeneity of sleep apnea has not included a diverse Latino population, he emphasized.

The adults studied were aged 18-74 years and participants in the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), a comprehensive study of Hispanic/Latino health and disease in the United States. Their respiratory events were measured overnight in HCHS/SOL sleep reading centers with an ARES Unicorder 5.2, B-Alert. Sleep patterns and risk factors were assessed using the Sleep Heart Health Study Sleep Habits Questionnaire and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Participants meeting the criteria for moderate to severe OSA (with an Apnea Hypopnea Index of 15 or above) were included in the analysis (n = 1,623). Their average age was 52.4 ± 13.9 years, and 34.1% were female.

To identify phenotype clusters, investigators performed a latent class analysis using 15 common OSA symptoms and a survey weighted to adjust for selection bias. The three clusters offering the “best” fit for the data aligned with the previously reported phenotypes and identified daytime sleepiness in 15.3%, disturbed sleep (insomnia-like symptoms) in 37.7%, and minimally symptomatic (a low symptom profile) in 46.9%.

These phenotypes were reported in the European Respiratory Journal in 2014 in a cluster analysis of data from a sleep apnea cohort in Iceland and later replicated in the analysis of data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium published in Sleep in 2018. The consortium study also added two additional phenotypes, labeled “upper airway symptoms dominant” and “sleepiness dominant.”

The prevalence of a “minimally symptomatic group” in the new analysis of the Hispanics/Latinos in the United States is much higher than reported in these prior studies, at least partly, the investigators believed, because the “prior studies were clinical samples, and the people who were minimally symptomatic didn’t get to the sleep centers,” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview after the meeting.

Patients with a phenotype of daytime sleepiness – the most common phenotype in prior research – constituted only a minority in the Hispanic/Latino population, he said.

Alberto Ramos, MD, of the University of Miami and the principal investigator, said in an interview that the research team is currently analyzing “if and how these different [phenotypic] clusters could affect the incidence of comorbidities” recorded in the HCHS/SOL study, such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline.

For now, he said, the findings suggest that OSA may be especially underrecognized in Hispanics and Latinos and that there is more research to be done to better identify and stratify patients with varying symptomatology for more personalized treatment and for clinical trial selection. “Maybe we should expand our criteria ... broaden our [recognition] of the presentation of sleep apnea and the symptoms associated with it, not only in Hispanics but maybe in the general population,” Dr. Ramos said.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said that insomnia and daytime sleepiness are “key associations with obstructive sleep apnea and may predict different outcomes with untreated OSA.” Such heterogeneity is “only beginning to be appreciated,” he said. “The expression of OSA with these symptoms points to how OSA impacts quality of life” and how symptomatology in addition to Apnea Hypopnea Index “may be an important determinant of treatment benefit and compliance.”

The investigators reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundar said that he is cofounder of Hypnoscure, software for population management of sleep apnea, but with no monies received.
 

Three previously described clinical phenotypes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been validated in a large and diverse Hispanic/Latino community-based population for the first time, according to findings presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The three OSA symptom profiles present in this population – labeled “minimally symptomatic,” “disturbed sleep,” and “daytime sleepiness” – are consistent with recent findings from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium, which were published in Sleep, but there are notable differences in the prevalence of these clusters, with the minimally symptomatic cluster much more prevalent than in prior research, reported Kevin Gonzalez, of the University of California, San Diego.

“Other biopsychosocial factors may be contributing to OSA phenotypes among Hispanics and Latinos,” Mr. Gonzalez said in his presentation. Prior research to characterize the heterogeneity of sleep apnea has not included a diverse Latino population, he emphasized.

The adults studied were aged 18-74 years and participants in the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), a comprehensive study of Hispanic/Latino health and disease in the United States. Their respiratory events were measured overnight in HCHS/SOL sleep reading centers with an ARES Unicorder 5.2, B-Alert. Sleep patterns and risk factors were assessed using the Sleep Heart Health Study Sleep Habits Questionnaire and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Participants meeting the criteria for moderate to severe OSA (with an Apnea Hypopnea Index of 15 or above) were included in the analysis (n = 1,623). Their average age was 52.4 ± 13.9 years, and 34.1% were female.

To identify phenotype clusters, investigators performed a latent class analysis using 15 common OSA symptoms and a survey weighted to adjust for selection bias. The three clusters offering the “best” fit for the data aligned with the previously reported phenotypes and identified daytime sleepiness in 15.3%, disturbed sleep (insomnia-like symptoms) in 37.7%, and minimally symptomatic (a low symptom profile) in 46.9%.

These phenotypes were reported in the European Respiratory Journal in 2014 in a cluster analysis of data from a sleep apnea cohort in Iceland and later replicated in the analysis of data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium published in Sleep in 2018. The consortium study also added two additional phenotypes, labeled “upper airway symptoms dominant” and “sleepiness dominant.”

The prevalence of a “minimally symptomatic group” in the new analysis of the Hispanics/Latinos in the United States is much higher than reported in these prior studies, at least partly, the investigators believed, because the “prior studies were clinical samples, and the people who were minimally symptomatic didn’t get to the sleep centers,” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview after the meeting.

Patients with a phenotype of daytime sleepiness – the most common phenotype in prior research – constituted only a minority in the Hispanic/Latino population, he said.

Alberto Ramos, MD, of the University of Miami and the principal investigator, said in an interview that the research team is currently analyzing “if and how these different [phenotypic] clusters could affect the incidence of comorbidities” recorded in the HCHS/SOL study, such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline.

For now, he said, the findings suggest that OSA may be especially underrecognized in Hispanics and Latinos and that there is more research to be done to better identify and stratify patients with varying symptomatology for more personalized treatment and for clinical trial selection. “Maybe we should expand our criteria ... broaden our [recognition] of the presentation of sleep apnea and the symptoms associated with it, not only in Hispanics but maybe in the general population,” Dr. Ramos said.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said that insomnia and daytime sleepiness are “key associations with obstructive sleep apnea and may predict different outcomes with untreated OSA.” Such heterogeneity is “only beginning to be appreciated,” he said. “The expression of OSA with these symptoms points to how OSA impacts quality of life” and how symptomatology in addition to Apnea Hypopnea Index “may be an important determinant of treatment benefit and compliance.”

The investigators reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundar said that he is cofounder of Hypnoscure, software for population management of sleep apnea, but with no monies received.
 

Three previously described clinical phenotypes of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have been validated in a large and diverse Hispanic/Latino community-based population for the first time, according to findings presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The three OSA symptom profiles present in this population – labeled “minimally symptomatic,” “disturbed sleep,” and “daytime sleepiness” – are consistent with recent findings from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium, which were published in Sleep, but there are notable differences in the prevalence of these clusters, with the minimally symptomatic cluster much more prevalent than in prior research, reported Kevin Gonzalez, of the University of California, San Diego.

“Other biopsychosocial factors may be contributing to OSA phenotypes among Hispanics and Latinos,” Mr. Gonzalez said in his presentation. Prior research to characterize the heterogeneity of sleep apnea has not included a diverse Latino population, he emphasized.

The adults studied were aged 18-74 years and participants in the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), a comprehensive study of Hispanic/Latino health and disease in the United States. Their respiratory events were measured overnight in HCHS/SOL sleep reading centers with an ARES Unicorder 5.2, B-Alert. Sleep patterns and risk factors were assessed using the Sleep Heart Health Study Sleep Habits Questionnaire and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.

Participants meeting the criteria for moderate to severe OSA (with an Apnea Hypopnea Index of 15 or above) were included in the analysis (n = 1,623). Their average age was 52.4 ± 13.9 years, and 34.1% were female.

To identify phenotype clusters, investigators performed a latent class analysis using 15 common OSA symptoms and a survey weighted to adjust for selection bias. The three clusters offering the “best” fit for the data aligned with the previously reported phenotypes and identified daytime sleepiness in 15.3%, disturbed sleep (insomnia-like symptoms) in 37.7%, and minimally symptomatic (a low symptom profile) in 46.9%.

These phenotypes were reported in the European Respiratory Journal in 2014 in a cluster analysis of data from a sleep apnea cohort in Iceland and later replicated in the analysis of data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium published in Sleep in 2018. The consortium study also added two additional phenotypes, labeled “upper airway symptoms dominant” and “sleepiness dominant.”

The prevalence of a “minimally symptomatic group” in the new analysis of the Hispanics/Latinos in the United States is much higher than reported in these prior studies, at least partly, the investigators believed, because the “prior studies were clinical samples, and the people who were minimally symptomatic didn’t get to the sleep centers,” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview after the meeting.

Patients with a phenotype of daytime sleepiness – the most common phenotype in prior research – constituted only a minority in the Hispanic/Latino population, he said.

Alberto Ramos, MD, of the University of Miami and the principal investigator, said in an interview that the research team is currently analyzing “if and how these different [phenotypic] clusters could affect the incidence of comorbidities” recorded in the HCHS/SOL study, such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline.

For now, he said, the findings suggest that OSA may be especially underrecognized in Hispanics and Latinos and that there is more research to be done to better identify and stratify patients with varying symptomatology for more personalized treatment and for clinical trial selection. “Maybe we should expand our criteria ... broaden our [recognition] of the presentation of sleep apnea and the symptoms associated with it, not only in Hispanics but maybe in the general population,” Dr. Ramos said.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said that insomnia and daytime sleepiness are “key associations with obstructive sleep apnea and may predict different outcomes with untreated OSA.” Such heterogeneity is “only beginning to be appreciated,” he said. “The expression of OSA with these symptoms points to how OSA impacts quality of life” and how symptomatology in addition to Apnea Hypopnea Index “may be an important determinant of treatment benefit and compliance.”

The investigators reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundar said that he is cofounder of Hypnoscure, software for population management of sleep apnea, but with no monies received.
 

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Respiratory virus seasons usually follow a fairly well-known pattern. Enterovirus 68 (EV-D68) is a summer-to-early fall virus with biennial peak years. Rhinovirus (HRv) and adenovirus (Adv) occur nearly year-round but may have small upticks in the first month or so that children return to school. Early in the school year, upper respiratory infections from both HRv and Adv and viral sore throats from Adv are common, with conjunctivitis from Adv outbreaks in some years. October to November is human parainfluenza (HPiV) 1 and 2 season, often presenting as croup. Human metapneumovirus infections span October through April. In late November to December, influenza begins, usually with an A type, later transitioning to a B type in February through April. Also in December, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) starts, characteristically with bronchiolitis presentations, peaking in February to March and tapering off in May. In late March to April, HPiV 3 also appears for 4-6 weeks.

Will 2020-2021 be different?

Summer was remarkably free of expected enterovirus activity, suggesting that the seasonal parade may differ this year. Remember that the 2019-2020 respiratory season suddenly and nearly completely stopped in March because of social distancing and lockdowns needed to address the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The mild influenza season in the southern hemisphere suggests that our influenza season also could be mild. But perhaps not – most southern hemisphere countries that are surveyed for influenza activities had the most intense SARS-CoV-2 mitigations, making the observed mildness potentially related more to social mitigation than less virulent influenza strains. If so, southern hemisphere influenza data may not apply to the United States, where social distancing and masks are ignored or used inconsistently by almost half the population.

Further, the stop-and-go pattern of in-person school/college attendance adds to uncertainties for the usual orderly virus-specific seasonality. The result may be multiple stop-and-go “pop-up” or “mini” outbreaks for any given virus potentially reflected as exaggerated local or regional differences in circulation of various viruses. The erratic seasonality also would increase coinfections, which could present with more severe or different symptoms.
 

SARS-CoV-2’s potential interaction

Will the relatively mild presentations for most children with SARS-CoV-2 hold up in the setting of coinfections or sequential respiratory viral infections? Could SARS-CoV-2 cause worse/more prolonged symptoms or more sequelae if paired simultaneously or in tandem with a traditional respiratory virus? To date, data on the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 coinfections are conflicting and sparse, but it appears that non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses can be involved in 15%-50% pediatric acute respiratory infections.^1,2

However, it may not be important to know about coinfecting viruses other than influenza (can be treated) or SARS-CoV-2 (needs quarantine and contact tracing), unless symptoms are atypical or more severe than usual. For example, a young child with bronchiolitis is most likely infected with RSV, but HPiV, influenza, metapneumovirus, HRv, and even SARS-CoV-2 can cause bronchiolitis. Even so, testing outpatients for RSV or non-influenza is not routine or even clinically helpful. Supportive treatment and restriction from daycare attendance are sufficient management for outpatient ARIs whether presenting as bronchiolitis or not. The worry is that SARS-CoV-2 as a coinfecting agent may not provide an identifiable clinical signal as primary or coinfecting ARI pathogen.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient bronchiolitis

If a child presents with classic bronchiolitis but has above moderate to severe symptoms, is SARS-CoV-2 a consideration? Perhaps, if SARS-CoV-2 acts similarly to non-SARS-CoV-2s.

A recent report from the 30th Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC-30) surveillance study (2007-2014) of children hospitalized with clinical bronchiolitis evaluated respiratory viruses, including RSV and the four common non-SARS coronaviruses using molecular testing.³ Among 1,880 subjects, a CoV (alpha CoV: NL63 or 229E, or beta CoV: KKU1 or OC43) was detected in 12%. Yet most had only RSV (n = 1,661); 32 had only CoV (n = 32). But note that 219 had both.

Bronchiolitis subjects with CoV were older – median 3.7 (1.4-5.8) vs. 2.8 (1.9-7.2) years – and more likely male than were RSV subjects (68% vs. 58%). OC43 was most frequent followed by equal numbers of HKU1 and NL63, while 229E was the least frequent. Medical utilization and severity did not differ among the CoVs, or between RSV+CoV vs. RSV alone, unless one considered CoV viral load as a variable. ICU use increased when the polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold result indicated a high CoV viral load.

These data suggest CoVs are not infrequent coinfectors with RSV in bronchiolitis – and that SARS-CoV-2 is the same. Therefore, a bronchiolitis presentation doesn’t necessarily take us off the hook for the need to consider SARS-CoV-2 testing, particularly in the somewhat older bronchiolitis patient with more than mild symptoms.
 

Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 testing: Outpatient influenza-like illness

In 2020-2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends considering empiric antiviral treatment for ILIs (fever plus either cough or sore throat) based upon our clinical judgement, even in non-high-risk children.⁴

While pediatric COVID-19 illnesses are predominantly asymptomatic or mild, a febrile ARI is also a SARS-CoV-2 compatible presentation. So, if all we use is our clinical judgment, how do we know if the febrile ARI is due to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 or both? At least one study used a highly sensitive and specific molecular influenza test to show that the accuracy of clinically diagnosing influenza in children is not much better than flipping a coin and would lead to potential antiviral overuse.⁵

So, it seems ideal to test for influenza when possible. Point-of-care (POC) tests are frequently used for outpatients. Eight POC Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–waived kits, some also detecting RSV, are available but most have modest sensitivity (60%-80%) compared with lab-based molecular tests.⁶ That said, if supplies and kits for one of the POC tests are available to us during these SARS-CoV-2 stressed times (back orders seem more common this year), a positive influenza test in the first 48 hours of symptoms confirms the option to prescribe an antiviral. Yet how will we have confidence that the febrile ARI is not also partly due to SARS-CoV-2? Currently febrile ARIs usually are considered SARS-CoV-2 and the children are sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During influenza season, it seems we will need to continue to send febrile outpatients for SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if POC influenza positive, via whatever mechanisms are available as time goes on.

We expect more rapid pediatric testing modalities for SARS-CoV-2 (maybe even saliva tests) to become available over the next months. Indeed, rapid antigen tests and rapid molecular tests are being evaluated in adults and seem destined for CLIA waivers as POC tests, and even home testing kits. Pediatric approvals hopefully also will occur. So, the pathways for SARS-CoV-2 testing available now will likely change over this winter. But be aware that supplies/kits will be prioritized to locations within high need areas and bulk purchase contracts. So POC kits may remain scarce for practices, meaning a reference laboratory still could be the way to go for SARS-CoV-2 for at least the rest of 2020. Reference labs are becoming creative as well; one combined detection of influenza A, influenza B, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 into one test, and hopes to get approval for swab collection that can be done by families at home and mailed in.

 

Summary

Expect variations on the traditional parade of seasonal respiratory viruses, with increased numbers of coinfections. Choosing the outpatient who needs influenza testing is the same as in past years, although we have CDC permissive recommendations to prescribe antivirals for any outpatient ILI within the first 48 hours of symptoms. Still, POC testing for influenza remains potentially valuable in the ILI patient. The choice of whether and how to test for SARS-CoV-2 given its potential to be a primary or coinfecting agent in presentations linked more closely to a traditional virus (e.g. RSV bronchiolitis) will be a test of our clinical judgement until more data and easier testing are available. Further complicating coinfection recognition is the fact that many sick visits occur by telehealth and much testing is done at drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing facilities with no clinician exam. Unless we are liberal in SARS-CoV-2 testing, detecting SARS-CoV-2 coinfections is easier said than done given its usually mild presentation being overshadowed by any coinfecting virus.

But understanding who has SARS-CoV-2, even as a coinfection, still is essential in controlling the pandemic. We will need to be vigilant for evolving approaches to SARS-CoV-2 testing in the context of symptomatic ARI presentations, knowing this will likely remain a moving target for the foreseeable future.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital-Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20200961.

2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2085-6.

3. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1267.

4. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm.

5. J. Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.007.

6. www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-nucleic-acid-detection.html.

Insomnia disorder appears to play a causal role in the development of new stressful life events, especially “dependent” events for which individuals are at least partly responsible, said the investigators of an ongoing longitudinal study of people who have experienced involuntary job loss.

The “stress-generation hypothesis” has been applied for several decades in the context of depression. It posits that depressed individuals generate more stressful life events – events that create family conflict or disrupt careers, for instance – than individuals who are not depressed.

The new analysis of individuals with involuntary job loss suggests that the same can be said of insomnia. “Insomnia disorder is associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, impaired concentration, and difficulties in emotional regulation,” Iva Skobic, MSPH, MA, a PhD student at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“These may lead to impaired decision-making, interpersonal conflicts, difficulty meeting deadlines and keeping commitments, and other sources [of stressful life events],” she said. “This extension of the stress-generation hypothesis has important implications for harm reduction interventions for insomnia disorder.”

Investigators conducted a cross-lagged panel analysis using baseline and 3-month follow-up data from 137 individuals who completed a standardized, textual life event measure called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule after having lost their jobs involuntarily. Participants were interviewed and their events were rated for severity by a consensus panel using operationalized criteria. The analysis employed linear regression controlling for covariates (age, gender, and race) and logistic regression that controlled for insomnia at baseline. Insomnia disorder was defined as meeting ICSD-2/3 criteria using the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders.

The findings: Insomnia disorder at baseline predicted the number of stressful life events (either dependent or interpersonal) generated within 3 months (beta, 0.70; standard error, 0.31; Tscore, 2.27; P = .03). Conversely, the number of stressful events at baseline did not predict insomnia (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.29). There also was a trend toward increased generation of dependent events specifically among those with insomnia disorder.

Participants were a mean age of 42 years, and all had been in their previous place of employment for at least 6 months. Nearly 60% met the diagnostic threshold for insomnia at baseline. They were part of a larger ongoing study examining the linkages between job loss and sleep disturbances, obesity, and mental health – the Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

This analysis on insomnia was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but it and other analyses soon to be reported are highly relevant to the economic climate, said Patricia Haynes, PhD, principal investigator of ADAPT and a coauthor of the insomnia study, in an interview after the meeting.

Insomnia is a frequent comorbidity of depression and shares many of its symptoms, from increased fatigue to emotional dysregulation and an increased risk of maladaptive coping strategies. “Interestingly, the literature on the stress-generation hypothesis posits that these very symptoms are on the casual pathway between depression and stressful life events,” said Ms. Skobic at the meeting.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that the analysis did not include any measure of the severity of insomnia. Still, he said, “finding an association [with stress generation] at [just] 3 months with the presence of insomnia disorder is quite interesting.”

There were higher rates of insomnia in the sample than depression, Dr. Haynes said, but the analysis did not control for depression or take it into account.

“We know [from prior research] that stress clearly leads to insomnia. The big [takeaway] here is that insomnia can also lead to more stress,” she said. “It’s important to think of it as a reciprocal relationship. If we can potentially treat insomnia, we may be able to stop that cycle of other stressful events that affect both [the individuals] and others as well.”

Ms. Skobic had no disclosures.

Insomnia disorder appears to play a causal role in the development of new stressful life events, especially “dependent” events for which individuals are at least partly responsible, said the investigators of an ongoing longitudinal study of people who have experienced involuntary job loss.

The “stress-generation hypothesis” has been applied for several decades in the context of depression. It posits that depressed individuals generate more stressful life events – events that create family conflict or disrupt careers, for instance – than individuals who are not depressed.

The new analysis of individuals with involuntary job loss suggests that the same can be said of insomnia. “Insomnia disorder is associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, impaired concentration, and difficulties in emotional regulation,” Iva Skobic, MSPH, MA, a PhD student at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“These may lead to impaired decision-making, interpersonal conflicts, difficulty meeting deadlines and keeping commitments, and other sources [of stressful life events],” she said. “This extension of the stress-generation hypothesis has important implications for harm reduction interventions for insomnia disorder.”

Investigators conducted a cross-lagged panel analysis using baseline and 3-month follow-up data from 137 individuals who completed a standardized, textual life event measure called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule after having lost their jobs involuntarily. Participants were interviewed and their events were rated for severity by a consensus panel using operationalized criteria. The analysis employed linear regression controlling for covariates (age, gender, and race) and logistic regression that controlled for insomnia at baseline. Insomnia disorder was defined as meeting ICSD-2/3 criteria using the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders.

The findings: Insomnia disorder at baseline predicted the number of stressful life events (either dependent or interpersonal) generated within 3 months (beta, 0.70; standard error, 0.31; Tscore, 2.27; P = .03). Conversely, the number of stressful events at baseline did not predict insomnia (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.29). There also was a trend toward increased generation of dependent events specifically among those with insomnia disorder.

Participants were a mean age of 42 years, and all had been in their previous place of employment for at least 6 months. Nearly 60% met the diagnostic threshold for insomnia at baseline. They were part of a larger ongoing study examining the linkages between job loss and sleep disturbances, obesity, and mental health – the Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

This analysis on insomnia was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but it and other analyses soon to be reported are highly relevant to the economic climate, said Patricia Haynes, PhD, principal investigator of ADAPT and a coauthor of the insomnia study, in an interview after the meeting.

Insomnia is a frequent comorbidity of depression and shares many of its symptoms, from increased fatigue to emotional dysregulation and an increased risk of maladaptive coping strategies. “Interestingly, the literature on the stress-generation hypothesis posits that these very symptoms are on the casual pathway between depression and stressful life events,” said Ms. Skobic at the meeting.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that the analysis did not include any measure of the severity of insomnia. Still, he said, “finding an association [with stress generation] at [just] 3 months with the presence of insomnia disorder is quite interesting.”

There were higher rates of insomnia in the sample than depression, Dr. Haynes said, but the analysis did not control for depression or take it into account.

“We know [from prior research] that stress clearly leads to insomnia. The big [takeaway] here is that insomnia can also lead to more stress,” she said. “It’s important to think of it as a reciprocal relationship. If we can potentially treat insomnia, we may be able to stop that cycle of other stressful events that affect both [the individuals] and others as well.”

Ms. Skobic had no disclosures.

Insomnia disorder appears to play a causal role in the development of new stressful life events, especially “dependent” events for which individuals are at least partly responsible, said the investigators of an ongoing longitudinal study of people who have experienced involuntary job loss.

The “stress-generation hypothesis” has been applied for several decades in the context of depression. It posits that depressed individuals generate more stressful life events – events that create family conflict or disrupt careers, for instance – than individuals who are not depressed.

The new analysis of individuals with involuntary job loss suggests that the same can be said of insomnia. “Insomnia disorder is associated with fatigue, daytime sleepiness, impaired concentration, and difficulties in emotional regulation,” Iva Skobic, MSPH, MA, a PhD student at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“These may lead to impaired decision-making, interpersonal conflicts, difficulty meeting deadlines and keeping commitments, and other sources [of stressful life events],” she said. “This extension of the stress-generation hypothesis has important implications for harm reduction interventions for insomnia disorder.”

Investigators conducted a cross-lagged panel analysis using baseline and 3-month follow-up data from 137 individuals who completed a standardized, textual life event measure called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedule after having lost their jobs involuntarily. Participants were interviewed and their events were rated for severity by a consensus panel using operationalized criteria. The analysis employed linear regression controlling for covariates (age, gender, and race) and logistic regression that controlled for insomnia at baseline. Insomnia disorder was defined as meeting ICSD-2/3 criteria using the Duke Structured Interview for Sleep Disorders.

The findings: Insomnia disorder at baseline predicted the number of stressful life events (either dependent or interpersonal) generated within 3 months (beta, 0.70; standard error, 0.31; Tscore, 2.27; P = .03). Conversely, the number of stressful events at baseline did not predict insomnia (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.29). There also was a trend toward increased generation of dependent events specifically among those with insomnia disorder.

Participants were a mean age of 42 years, and all had been in their previous place of employment for at least 6 months. Nearly 60% met the diagnostic threshold for insomnia at baseline. They were part of a larger ongoing study examining the linkages between job loss and sleep disturbances, obesity, and mental health – the Assessing Daily Activity Patterns through Occupational Transitions (ADAPT) study, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

This analysis on insomnia was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but it and other analyses soon to be reported are highly relevant to the economic climate, said Patricia Haynes, PhD, principal investigator of ADAPT and a coauthor of the insomnia study, in an interview after the meeting.

Insomnia is a frequent comorbidity of depression and shares many of its symptoms, from increased fatigue to emotional dysregulation and an increased risk of maladaptive coping strategies. “Interestingly, the literature on the stress-generation hypothesis posits that these very symptoms are on the casual pathway between depression and stressful life events,” said Ms. Skobic at the meeting.

In commenting on the study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that the analysis did not include any measure of the severity of insomnia. Still, he said, “finding an association [with stress generation] at [just] 3 months with the presence of insomnia disorder is quite interesting.”

There were higher rates of insomnia in the sample than depression, Dr. Haynes said, but the analysis did not control for depression or take it into account.

“We know [from prior research] that stress clearly leads to insomnia. The big [takeaway] here is that insomnia can also lead to more stress,” she said. “It’s important to think of it as a reciprocal relationship. If we can potentially treat insomnia, we may be able to stop that cycle of other stressful events that affect both [the individuals] and others as well.”

Ms. Skobic had no disclosures.