Many health care providers (HCPs) view the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system of electronic reminders as a model. User experience and improvements that make clinical life easier (like automated text messaging, which requires no hands-on staff involvement) have brought more HCPs into the fold. And during a viral pandemic, preventive care is ever more important, as are the ways to provide it. But a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study shows some non-VA providers have some catching up to do.

Although the CDC researchers noted that electronic reminders can improve preventive and follow-up care, they also pointed out that HCPs must first have the computing capabilities to accomplish this. They analyzed 2017 data (the most recent available) from the National Electronic Health Records Survey of > 10,000 physicians and found only 65% of office-based physicians did.

Not surprisingly, practices that used electronic health record (EHR) systems were more than 3 times as likely to also have computerized capability to identify patients who needed preventive care or follow-up (71% vs 23% of practices without EHR). Primary care physicians were more likely than surgeons and other nonprimary care physicians to have the capability (73% vs 55% and 59%, respectively). Age also entered into it, with 70% of physicians aged between 45 and 54 years having the capability, compared with 57% of those aged 65 to 84 years. Offices with multiple physicians were more likely to have computerized capability.

The VA began using computerized clinical reminders 20 years ago to encourage patients to take better care of themselves to, for example, moderate alcohol use, manage cholesterol, or stop smoking. In 2006, the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) won an Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University. The committee called VistA innovative because of its “unique linkage with standardized, consistent performance measurement.” VistA, the committee said, “substantially improves efficiency, reduces costs and demonstrably improves clinical decision-making.”

However, when the VA was getting its electronic reminder system up to speed, not all users were comfortable with it. Researchers who studied uptake of a system that sent reminders about lipid management to patients with ischemic heart disease found “substantial barriers” to implementation, including a possibly significant effect of “prior culture and attitudes” toward reminders.

Four years after the VA began using computerized reminders, attendees at “Camp CPRS,” a week-long meeting to train employees in the Computerized Patient Record System, were asked about facilitation and barriers. More than half of respondents could report at least 1 situation in which reminders helped them deliver care more effectively. But “[w]hile the potential benefits of such a system are significant,” the researchers said, “and in fact some VA hospitals are showing an increase in compliance with some best practices…it is generally understood that some providers within the VA do not use the clinical reminders.” Some HCPs said they were hard to use and cited insufficient training.

Experience and consistent use pay off, though. For instance, researchers from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic clinical reminder for brief alcohol counseling at 8 VA sites. They wanted to determine how often the HCPs used the reminder, and whether it helped patients resolve unhealthy alcohol use. The study, involving 4,198 participants who screened positive for alcohol use, found 71% of the patients had the clinical reminder documented in the EHR—a high rate, the researchers noted, relative to other studies. The results were similar across the 2-year period, even in the first 8 months.

Sustainability also is a factor. At the time of their study, the researchers said, no health care system had achieved sustained implementation of brief alcohol counseling for patients who screened positive. Moreover, the patients who had reminders were significantly more likely to report having resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up.

Do electronic daily reminders really improve adherence? Valentin Rivish, DNP, RN, NE-BC, telehealth specialist and facility e-consult coordinator with the Phoenix VA Health Care System in Arizona, wanted to see what evidence exists on telehealth adherence and utilization. He enlisted 40 veterans whose home-telehealth response rates were < 70%. Over 4 weeks, the veterans received an electronic daily reminder sent to their home-telehealth device, with the goal of having them respond daily.

As Rivish expected, daily reminders did improve adherence. After 4 weeks, 24 participants (60%) showed an increased response rate, and 14 (35%) achieved at least a 70% response rate pos-intervention. As a result, the Phoenix telehealth department has included the cost-effective intervention in its standard operating procedure.  

The VA has continued to add to its repertoire of ways to stay in touch with patients. In 2018, for instance, it launched VEText, a text messaging appointment-reminder system. According to the Veterans Health Administration Office of Veterans Access to Care, in just the first few months more than 3.24 million patients had received VEText messages (and had canceled 319,504 appointments, freeing up time slots for other veterans).

This year, the VA, US Department of Defense, and US Coast Guard launched a joint health information exchange (HIE) that allows partners to quickly and securely share EHR data bidirectionally with participating community healthcare providers. To that end, the 46,000-member HIE is collaborating with the CommonWell Health Alliance, adding a nationwide network of more than 15,000 hospitals and clinics.

“As a clinician who is using the joint HIE, the more patient information I have access to, the more I can understand the full picture of my patients’ care and better meet their needs,” says Dr. Neil Evans, a VA primary care physician and clinical leader with the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, efficient electronic health information is more important than ever.”

Many health care providers (HCPs) view the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system of electronic reminders as a model. User experience and improvements that make clinical life easier (like automated text messaging, which requires no hands-on staff involvement) have brought more HCPs into the fold. And during a viral pandemic, preventive care is ever more important, as are the ways to provide it. But a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study shows some non-VA providers have some catching up to do.

Although the CDC researchers noted that electronic reminders can improve preventive and follow-up care, they also pointed out that HCPs must first have the computing capabilities to accomplish this. They analyzed 2017 data (the most recent available) from the National Electronic Health Records Survey of > 10,000 physicians and found only 65% of office-based physicians did.

Not surprisingly, practices that used electronic health record (EHR) systems were more than 3 times as likely to also have computerized capability to identify patients who needed preventive care or follow-up (71% vs 23% of practices without EHR). Primary care physicians were more likely than surgeons and other nonprimary care physicians to have the capability (73% vs 55% and 59%, respectively). Age also entered into it, with 70% of physicians aged between 45 and 54 years having the capability, compared with 57% of those aged 65 to 84 years. Offices with multiple physicians were more likely to have computerized capability.

The VA began using computerized clinical reminders 20 years ago to encourage patients to take better care of themselves to, for example, moderate alcohol use, manage cholesterol, or stop smoking. In 2006, the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) won an Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University. The committee called VistA innovative because of its “unique linkage with standardized, consistent performance measurement.” VistA, the committee said, “substantially improves efficiency, reduces costs and demonstrably improves clinical decision-making.”

However, when the VA was getting its electronic reminder system up to speed, not all users were comfortable with it. Researchers who studied uptake of a system that sent reminders about lipid management to patients with ischemic heart disease found “substantial barriers” to implementation, including a possibly significant effect of “prior culture and attitudes” toward reminders.

Four years after the VA began using computerized reminders, attendees at “Camp CPRS,” a week-long meeting to train employees in the Computerized Patient Record System, were asked about facilitation and barriers. More than half of respondents could report at least 1 situation in which reminders helped them deliver care more effectively. But “[w]hile the potential benefits of such a system are significant,” the researchers said, “and in fact some VA hospitals are showing an increase in compliance with some best practices…it is generally understood that some providers within the VA do not use the clinical reminders.” Some HCPs said they were hard to use and cited insufficient training.

Experience and consistent use pay off, though. For instance, researchers from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic clinical reminder for brief alcohol counseling at 8 VA sites. They wanted to determine how often the HCPs used the reminder, and whether it helped patients resolve unhealthy alcohol use. The study, involving 4,198 participants who screened positive for alcohol use, found 71% of the patients had the clinical reminder documented in the EHR—a high rate, the researchers noted, relative to other studies. The results were similar across the 2-year period, even in the first 8 months.

Sustainability also is a factor. At the time of their study, the researchers said, no health care system had achieved sustained implementation of brief alcohol counseling for patients who screened positive. Moreover, the patients who had reminders were significantly more likely to report having resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up.

Do electronic daily reminders really improve adherence? Valentin Rivish, DNP, RN, NE-BC, telehealth specialist and facility e-consult coordinator with the Phoenix VA Health Care System in Arizona, wanted to see what evidence exists on telehealth adherence and utilization. He enlisted 40 veterans whose home-telehealth response rates were < 70%. Over 4 weeks, the veterans received an electronic daily reminder sent to their home-telehealth device, with the goal of having them respond daily.

As Rivish expected, daily reminders did improve adherence. After 4 weeks, 24 participants (60%) showed an increased response rate, and 14 (35%) achieved at least a 70% response rate pos-intervention. As a result, the Phoenix telehealth department has included the cost-effective intervention in its standard operating procedure.  

The VA has continued to add to its repertoire of ways to stay in touch with patients. In 2018, for instance, it launched VEText, a text messaging appointment-reminder system. According to the Veterans Health Administration Office of Veterans Access to Care, in just the first few months more than 3.24 million patients had received VEText messages (and had canceled 319,504 appointments, freeing up time slots for other veterans).

This year, the VA, US Department of Defense, and US Coast Guard launched a joint health information exchange (HIE) that allows partners to quickly and securely share EHR data bidirectionally with participating community healthcare providers. To that end, the 46,000-member HIE is collaborating with the CommonWell Health Alliance, adding a nationwide network of more than 15,000 hospitals and clinics.

“As a clinician who is using the joint HIE, the more patient information I have access to, the more I can understand the full picture of my patients’ care and better meet their needs,” says Dr. Neil Evans, a VA primary care physician and clinical leader with the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, efficient electronic health information is more important than ever.”

Many health care providers (HCPs) view the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system of electronic reminders as a model. User experience and improvements that make clinical life easier (like automated text messaging, which requires no hands-on staff involvement) have brought more HCPs into the fold. And during a viral pandemic, preventive care is ever more important, as are the ways to provide it. But a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study shows some non-VA providers have some catching up to do.

Although the CDC researchers noted that electronic reminders can improve preventive and follow-up care, they also pointed out that HCPs must first have the computing capabilities to accomplish this. They analyzed 2017 data (the most recent available) from the National Electronic Health Records Survey of > 10,000 physicians and found only 65% of office-based physicians did.

Not surprisingly, practices that used electronic health record (EHR) systems were more than 3 times as likely to also have computerized capability to identify patients who needed preventive care or follow-up (71% vs 23% of practices without EHR). Primary care physicians were more likely than surgeons and other nonprimary care physicians to have the capability (73% vs 55% and 59%, respectively). Age also entered into it, with 70% of physicians aged between 45 and 54 years having the capability, compared with 57% of those aged 65 to 84 years. Offices with multiple physicians were more likely to have computerized capability.

The VA began using computerized clinical reminders 20 years ago to encourage patients to take better care of themselves to, for example, moderate alcohol use, manage cholesterol, or stop smoking. In 2006, the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) won an Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University. The committee called VistA innovative because of its “unique linkage with standardized, consistent performance measurement.” VistA, the committee said, “substantially improves efficiency, reduces costs and demonstrably improves clinical decision-making.”

However, when the VA was getting its electronic reminder system up to speed, not all users were comfortable with it. Researchers who studied uptake of a system that sent reminders about lipid management to patients with ischemic heart disease found “substantial barriers” to implementation, including a possibly significant effect of “prior culture and attitudes” toward reminders.

Four years after the VA began using computerized reminders, attendees at “Camp CPRS,” a week-long meeting to train employees in the Computerized Patient Record System, were asked about facilitation and barriers. More than half of respondents could report at least 1 situation in which reminders helped them deliver care more effectively. But “[w]hile the potential benefits of such a system are significant,” the researchers said, “and in fact some VA hospitals are showing an increase in compliance with some best practices…it is generally understood that some providers within the VA do not use the clinical reminders.” Some HCPs said they were hard to use and cited insufficient training.

Experience and consistent use pay off, though. For instance, researchers from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic clinical reminder for brief alcohol counseling at 8 VA sites. They wanted to determine how often the HCPs used the reminder, and whether it helped patients resolve unhealthy alcohol use. The study, involving 4,198 participants who screened positive for alcohol use, found 71% of the patients had the clinical reminder documented in the EHR—a high rate, the researchers noted, relative to other studies. The results were similar across the 2-year period, even in the first 8 months.

Sustainability also is a factor. At the time of their study, the researchers said, no health care system had achieved sustained implementation of brief alcohol counseling for patients who screened positive. Moreover, the patients who had reminders were significantly more likely to report having resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up.

Do electronic daily reminders really improve adherence? Valentin Rivish, DNP, RN, NE-BC, telehealth specialist and facility e-consult coordinator with the Phoenix VA Health Care System in Arizona, wanted to see what evidence exists on telehealth adherence and utilization. He enlisted 40 veterans whose home-telehealth response rates were < 70%. Over 4 weeks, the veterans received an electronic daily reminder sent to their home-telehealth device, with the goal of having them respond daily.

As Rivish expected, daily reminders did improve adherence. After 4 weeks, 24 participants (60%) showed an increased response rate, and 14 (35%) achieved at least a 70% response rate pos-intervention. As a result, the Phoenix telehealth department has included the cost-effective intervention in its standard operating procedure.  

The VA has continued to add to its repertoire of ways to stay in touch with patients. In 2018, for instance, it launched VEText, a text messaging appointment-reminder system. According to the Veterans Health Administration Office of Veterans Access to Care, in just the first few months more than 3.24 million patients had received VEText messages (and had canceled 319,504 appointments, freeing up time slots for other veterans).

This year, the VA, US Department of Defense, and US Coast Guard launched a joint health information exchange (HIE) that allows partners to quickly and securely share EHR data bidirectionally with participating community healthcare providers. To that end, the 46,000-member HIE is collaborating with the CommonWell Health Alliance, adding a nationwide network of more than 15,000 hospitals and clinics.

“As a clinician who is using the joint HIE, the more patient information I have access to, the more I can understand the full picture of my patients’ care and better meet their needs,” says Dr. Neil Evans, a VA primary care physician and clinical leader with the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, efficient electronic health information is more important than ever.”

Normally, the lysosome, known as the cells’ “trash compactor,” destroys viruses before they can leave the cell. However, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 is not like other viruses. The virus can deactivate that waste disposal system, exit without hindrance, and spread freely throughout the body.

“To our shock, these coronaviruses got out of the cells just fine,” said Nihal Altan-Bonnet, PhD, chief of the Laboratory of Host-Pathogen Dynamics at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, who coauthored the study report.

Most viruses exit via the biosynthetic secretory pathway, used to transport hormones, growth factors and other materials. The researchers wanted to learn whether coronaviruses took an alternate route. To find out, they conducted further studies, using microscopy and virus-specific markers. They discovered that coronaviruses somehow target the lysosome and congregate there. Although lysosomes are highly acidic, the coronaviruses were not destroyed.

That question led to more experiments. The researchers next found that lysosomes get “de-acidified” in coronavirus-infected cells, which weakens their destructive enzymes. The result: The coronavirus remains intact, ready to infect other cells upon exiting.

The coronaviruses are “very sneaky,” Altan-Bonnet says. “They’re using these lysosomes to get out, but they’re also disrupting the lysosome so it can’t do its job or function.” It’s possible that the way the coronavirus interferes with the lysosome’s “immunological machinery” underlies some of the immune system abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients, such as cytokine storms.

Studying this coronavirus's heterodox ways may mean that researchers can figure out how to keep it from getting out unscathed, or restore the lysosome’s killing ability by re-acidifying it. Altan-Bonnet and coauthor Sourish Ghosh, PhD, say they have already identified one experimental enzyme inhibitor that potently blocks coronaviruses from exiting the cell.

The lysosome pathway, Altan-Bonnet says, “offers a whole different way of thinking about targeted therapeutics.”

Normally, the lysosome, known as the cells’ “trash compactor,” destroys viruses before they can leave the cell. However, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 is not like other viruses. The virus can deactivate that waste disposal system, exit without hindrance, and spread freely throughout the body.

“To our shock, these coronaviruses got out of the cells just fine,” said Nihal Altan-Bonnet, PhD, chief of the Laboratory of Host-Pathogen Dynamics at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, who coauthored the study report.

Most viruses exit via the biosynthetic secretory pathway, used to transport hormones, growth factors and other materials. The researchers wanted to learn whether coronaviruses took an alternate route. To find out, they conducted further studies, using microscopy and virus-specific markers. They discovered that coronaviruses somehow target the lysosome and congregate there. Although lysosomes are highly acidic, the coronaviruses were not destroyed.

That question led to more experiments. The researchers next found that lysosomes get “de-acidified” in coronavirus-infected cells, which weakens their destructive enzymes. The result: The coronavirus remains intact, ready to infect other cells upon exiting.

The coronaviruses are “very sneaky,” Altan-Bonnet says. “They’re using these lysosomes to get out, but they’re also disrupting the lysosome so it can’t do its job or function.” It’s possible that the way the coronavirus interferes with the lysosome’s “immunological machinery” underlies some of the immune system abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients, such as cytokine storms.

Studying this coronavirus's heterodox ways may mean that researchers can figure out how to keep it from getting out unscathed, or restore the lysosome’s killing ability by re-acidifying it. Altan-Bonnet and coauthor Sourish Ghosh, PhD, say they have already identified one experimental enzyme inhibitor that potently blocks coronaviruses from exiting the cell.

The lysosome pathway, Altan-Bonnet says, “offers a whole different way of thinking about targeted therapeutics.”

Normally, the lysosome, known as the cells’ “trash compactor,” destroys viruses before they can leave the cell. However, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 is not like other viruses. The virus can deactivate that waste disposal system, exit without hindrance, and spread freely throughout the body.

“To our shock, these coronaviruses got out of the cells just fine,” said Nihal Altan-Bonnet, PhD, chief of the Laboratory of Host-Pathogen Dynamics at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, who coauthored the study report.

Most viruses exit via the biosynthetic secretory pathway, used to transport hormones, growth factors and other materials. The researchers wanted to learn whether coronaviruses took an alternate route. To find out, they conducted further studies, using microscopy and virus-specific markers. They discovered that coronaviruses somehow target the lysosome and congregate there. Although lysosomes are highly acidic, the coronaviruses were not destroyed.

That question led to more experiments. The researchers next found that lysosomes get “de-acidified” in coronavirus-infected cells, which weakens their destructive enzymes. The result: The coronavirus remains intact, ready to infect other cells upon exiting.

The coronaviruses are “very sneaky,” Altan-Bonnet says. “They’re using these lysosomes to get out, but they’re also disrupting the lysosome so it can’t do its job or function.” It’s possible that the way the coronavirus interferes with the lysosome’s “immunological machinery” underlies some of the immune system abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients, such as cytokine storms.

Studying this coronavirus's heterodox ways may mean that researchers can figure out how to keep it from getting out unscathed, or restore the lysosome’s killing ability by re-acidifying it. Altan-Bonnet and coauthor Sourish Ghosh, PhD, say they have already identified one experimental enzyme inhibitor that potently blocks coronaviruses from exiting the cell.

The lysosome pathway, Altan-Bonnet says, “offers a whole different way of thinking about targeted therapeutics.”

Both obese and nonobese individuals can develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid profiles were effective predictors in both groups, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 361 individuals.

Nephron/Wikimedia/Creative Commons License

Given the strong association between obesity and NAFLD, previous research on lipidomic profiles have focused on obese White patients, wrote Youngae Jung, MD, of the Korea Basic Science Institute, Seoul, and colleagues.

“However, there are insufficient data on circulating lipidomics of nonobese NAFLD patients,” they added.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 295 adults with NAFLD and 66 controls. Overall, 130 participants were nonobese (body mass index <25 kg/m²) and 231 were obese (BMI, 25 or higher). The nonobese group included 51 patients with NAFL, 31 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis , and 48 controls; the obese group included 106 patients with NAFL, 107 with NASH, and 18 controls.

Lipid profiles show predictive promise

Overall, changes in diacylglycerol (DAG) and triacylglycerol (TAG) appeared in both obese and nonobese patients with increases from NAFL to NASH, the researchers noted.

“Levels of DAGs with relatively short chains and a low degree of desaturation significantly increased in NAFL versus no NAFLD, regardless of obesity,” the researchers said. “In contrast, levels of DAGs with relatively long chains and a high degree of desaturation significantly decreased in NASH versus NAFL in the obese group, which was not observed in the nonobese group,” they noted.

In addition, saturated sphingomyelin (SM) species were significantly associated with visceral adiposity in nonobese NAFLD patients, but not in obese NAFLD patients, and SM levels were significantly associated with both systemic and adipose tissue insulin resistance.

The researchers identified five potential lipid metabolites for nonobese subjects and seven potential lipids for obese subjects that included DAGs, TAGs, and SMs that were distinct between NAFL and NASH patients in order to predict the histologic severity of NAFLD. Overall, these metabolite combinations were effective predictors of NAFLD/NASH in nonobese and obese patients. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.916 versus 0.813 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in nonobese patients, and 0.967 versus 0.812 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in the obese patients.
 

More BMI groups may yield more information

The key study limitation was the cross-sectional study design, the researchers noted. In addition, dividing patients into only two groups based on BMI may not reveal any distinct biology among lean NAFLD patients, who were included with overweight patients in the nonobese group.

However, the results were strengthened by the large amount of data and the confirmed diagnoses of NASH and fibrosis by an expert liver pathologist, they added.

“Therefore, our findings provide new insights that aid in the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development and severity of nonobese NAFLD, which are relevant to precision medicine and personalized therapy based on various phenotypes of NAFLD,” they concluded.
 

Validation needed in other populations

“Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing NAFLD/NASH but has its own limitations and risks, so many researchers in this field are looking for a noninvasive alternative to help with diagnosis,” Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview. “Imaging methods such as transient elastography and MR-elastography have been introduced and many biochemical markers have been evaluated, yet all have their limitations. In the current study, the authors report a high diagnostic accuracy for evaluating NAFLD using lipidomic profiles, which could introduce a new noninvasive measurement of NAFLD.”

Dr. Henry said that he was not surprised by the study findings. However, “I believe they are important as they define a lipid profile that shows differences between patients with NASH versus patients with NAFLD versus patients without NAFLD,” he said. “NAFLD is a disease of disordered lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, and although it stands to reason there would be differences in lipid profiles, it is interesting to see the changes between DAGs and TAGs especially as disease progresses from NAFLD to NASH.

“Clinically, I do not think this really changes practice right now since it needs to be validated in other populations of NAFLD. However, it certainly adds to a growing armamentarium of noninvasive testing. Hopefully, we are able to combine some of these noninvasive tests in the future to better predict NAFLD and NASH as well as outcomes such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma,” he said.

“I think these lipidomic profiles need to be validated in non-Korean populations of patients with NAFLD to determine if these changes are ubiquitous to everyone or if a different profile exists based upon different genetics and environment,” Dr. Henry added. “As the authors note in their paper, there have been previously published differences between populations of NAFLD in Asia as compared to Western countries and it is unclear how, if at all, these lipidomic profiles relate to those differences.”

The study was funded by the Korea Basic Science Institute, the Korea Health Industry Department Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Henry had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jung Y et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1111/apt.16066.

Both obese and nonobese individuals can develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid profiles were effective predictors in both groups, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 361 individuals.

Nephron/Wikimedia/Creative Commons License

Given the strong association between obesity and NAFLD, previous research on lipidomic profiles have focused on obese White patients, wrote Youngae Jung, MD, of the Korea Basic Science Institute, Seoul, and colleagues.

“However, there are insufficient data on circulating lipidomics of nonobese NAFLD patients,” they added.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 295 adults with NAFLD and 66 controls. Overall, 130 participants were nonobese (body mass index <25 kg/m²) and 231 were obese (BMI, 25 or higher). The nonobese group included 51 patients with NAFL, 31 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis , and 48 controls; the obese group included 106 patients with NAFL, 107 with NASH, and 18 controls.

Lipid profiles show predictive promise

Overall, changes in diacylglycerol (DAG) and triacylglycerol (TAG) appeared in both obese and nonobese patients with increases from NAFL to NASH, the researchers noted.

“Levels of DAGs with relatively short chains and a low degree of desaturation significantly increased in NAFL versus no NAFLD, regardless of obesity,” the researchers said. “In contrast, levels of DAGs with relatively long chains and a high degree of desaturation significantly decreased in NASH versus NAFL in the obese group, which was not observed in the nonobese group,” they noted.

In addition, saturated sphingomyelin (SM) species were significantly associated with visceral adiposity in nonobese NAFLD patients, but not in obese NAFLD patients, and SM levels were significantly associated with both systemic and adipose tissue insulin resistance.

The researchers identified five potential lipid metabolites for nonobese subjects and seven potential lipids for obese subjects that included DAGs, TAGs, and SMs that were distinct between NAFL and NASH patients in order to predict the histologic severity of NAFLD. Overall, these metabolite combinations were effective predictors of NAFLD/NASH in nonobese and obese patients. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.916 versus 0.813 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in nonobese patients, and 0.967 versus 0.812 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in the obese patients.
 

More BMI groups may yield more information

The key study limitation was the cross-sectional study design, the researchers noted. In addition, dividing patients into only two groups based on BMI may not reveal any distinct biology among lean NAFLD patients, who were included with overweight patients in the nonobese group.

However, the results were strengthened by the large amount of data and the confirmed diagnoses of NASH and fibrosis by an expert liver pathologist, they added.

“Therefore, our findings provide new insights that aid in the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development and severity of nonobese NAFLD, which are relevant to precision medicine and personalized therapy based on various phenotypes of NAFLD,” they concluded.
 

Validation needed in other populations

“Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing NAFLD/NASH but has its own limitations and risks, so many researchers in this field are looking for a noninvasive alternative to help with diagnosis,” Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview. “Imaging methods such as transient elastography and MR-elastography have been introduced and many biochemical markers have been evaluated, yet all have their limitations. In the current study, the authors report a high diagnostic accuracy for evaluating NAFLD using lipidomic profiles, which could introduce a new noninvasive measurement of NAFLD.”

Dr. Henry said that he was not surprised by the study findings. However, “I believe they are important as they define a lipid profile that shows differences between patients with NASH versus patients with NAFLD versus patients without NAFLD,” he said. “NAFLD is a disease of disordered lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, and although it stands to reason there would be differences in lipid profiles, it is interesting to see the changes between DAGs and TAGs especially as disease progresses from NAFLD to NASH.

“Clinically, I do not think this really changes practice right now since it needs to be validated in other populations of NAFLD. However, it certainly adds to a growing armamentarium of noninvasive testing. Hopefully, we are able to combine some of these noninvasive tests in the future to better predict NAFLD and NASH as well as outcomes such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma,” he said.

“I think these lipidomic profiles need to be validated in non-Korean populations of patients with NAFLD to determine if these changes are ubiquitous to everyone or if a different profile exists based upon different genetics and environment,” Dr. Henry added. “As the authors note in their paper, there have been previously published differences between populations of NAFLD in Asia as compared to Western countries and it is unclear how, if at all, these lipidomic profiles relate to those differences.”

The study was funded by the Korea Basic Science Institute, the Korea Health Industry Department Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Henry had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jung Y et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1111/apt.16066.

Both obese and nonobese individuals can develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid profiles were effective predictors in both groups, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 361 individuals.

Nephron/Wikimedia/Creative Commons License

Given the strong association between obesity and NAFLD, previous research on lipidomic profiles have focused on obese White patients, wrote Youngae Jung, MD, of the Korea Basic Science Institute, Seoul, and colleagues.

“However, there are insufficient data on circulating lipidomics of nonobese NAFLD patients,” they added.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 295 adults with NAFLD and 66 controls. Overall, 130 participants were nonobese (body mass index <25 kg/m²) and 231 were obese (BMI, 25 or higher). The nonobese group included 51 patients with NAFL, 31 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis , and 48 controls; the obese group included 106 patients with NAFL, 107 with NASH, and 18 controls.

Lipid profiles show predictive promise

Overall, changes in diacylglycerol (DAG) and triacylglycerol (TAG) appeared in both obese and nonobese patients with increases from NAFL to NASH, the researchers noted.

“Levels of DAGs with relatively short chains and a low degree of desaturation significantly increased in NAFL versus no NAFLD, regardless of obesity,” the researchers said. “In contrast, levels of DAGs with relatively long chains and a high degree of desaturation significantly decreased in NASH versus NAFL in the obese group, which was not observed in the nonobese group,” they noted.

In addition, saturated sphingomyelin (SM) species were significantly associated with visceral adiposity in nonobese NAFLD patients, but not in obese NAFLD patients, and SM levels were significantly associated with both systemic and adipose tissue insulin resistance.

The researchers identified five potential lipid metabolites for nonobese subjects and seven potential lipids for obese subjects that included DAGs, TAGs, and SMs that were distinct between NAFL and NASH patients in order to predict the histologic severity of NAFLD. Overall, these metabolite combinations were effective predictors of NAFLD/NASH in nonobese and obese patients. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.916 versus 0.813 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in nonobese patients, and 0.967 versus 0.812 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in the obese patients.
 

More BMI groups may yield more information

The key study limitation was the cross-sectional study design, the researchers noted. In addition, dividing patients into only two groups based on BMI may not reveal any distinct biology among lean NAFLD patients, who were included with overweight patients in the nonobese group.

However, the results were strengthened by the large amount of data and the confirmed diagnoses of NASH and fibrosis by an expert liver pathologist, they added.

“Therefore, our findings provide new insights that aid in the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development and severity of nonobese NAFLD, which are relevant to precision medicine and personalized therapy based on various phenotypes of NAFLD,” they concluded.
 

Validation needed in other populations

“Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing NAFLD/NASH but has its own limitations and risks, so many researchers in this field are looking for a noninvasive alternative to help with diagnosis,” Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview. “Imaging methods such as transient elastography and MR-elastography have been introduced and many biochemical markers have been evaluated, yet all have their limitations. In the current study, the authors report a high diagnostic accuracy for evaluating NAFLD using lipidomic profiles, which could introduce a new noninvasive measurement of NAFLD.”

Dr. Henry said that he was not surprised by the study findings. However, “I believe they are important as they define a lipid profile that shows differences between patients with NASH versus patients with NAFLD versus patients without NAFLD,” he said. “NAFLD is a disease of disordered lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, and although it stands to reason there would be differences in lipid profiles, it is interesting to see the changes between DAGs and TAGs especially as disease progresses from NAFLD to NASH.

“Clinically, I do not think this really changes practice right now since it needs to be validated in other populations of NAFLD. However, it certainly adds to a growing armamentarium of noninvasive testing. Hopefully, we are able to combine some of these noninvasive tests in the future to better predict NAFLD and NASH as well as outcomes such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma,” he said.

“I think these lipidomic profiles need to be validated in non-Korean populations of patients with NAFLD to determine if these changes are ubiquitous to everyone or if a different profile exists based upon different genetics and environment,” Dr. Henry added. “As the authors note in their paper, there have been previously published differences between populations of NAFLD in Asia as compared to Western countries and it is unclear how, if at all, these lipidomic profiles relate to those differences.”

The study was funded by the Korea Basic Science Institute, the Korea Health Industry Department Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Henry had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jung Y et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1111/apt.16066.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

Nebulized delivery of surfactant reduced the need for intubation and liquid surfactant administration by half among newborns with signs of respiratory distress syndrome, according to results from a large randomized, multicenter trial.

Neonatologists have long sought alternatives to intubation for administering surfactant to newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). An effective noninvasive aerosolized treatment has remained elusive, with small clinical trials that have produced mixed results.

In research published in Pediatrics, James J. Cummings, MD, of Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, and colleagues, randomized 457 infants (mean 33 weeks’ gestational age) with signs of RDS to either usual care or a nebulized bovine surfactant. Infants were recruited at 22 neonatal ICUs in the United States. Investigators were not blinded to treatment allocation and the decision to intubate was left up to the individual treating physician, because to do so, the authors wrote, would add “pragmatic strength” to the study, and “be ethically compliant with the infant’s best interest.”

Infants in the study received usual care or up to three treatments 4 or more hours apart of 35 mg/mL calfactant suspension, 210 mg phospholipid/kg body weight delivered into the mouth through a nebulizer modified with a pacifier. Dr. Cummings and colleagues found that intubation and liquid surfactant administration within the first 4 days after birth was 26% in the intervention group and 50% in the usual care group (P < .001).

The results remained significant after investigators adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, age when randomized, sex, delivery mode, and antenatal steroids. Rates of intubation for surfactant administration were lower for infants in the intervention group in all gestational age brackets except the youngest (23-24 weeks); all of these infants needed intubation. Respiratory support at days 3, 7, and 28 did not differ between study groups.

“Our study is the first to reveal the efficacy of an aerosolized surfactant delivery system that does not require a respiratory circuit interface,” the investigators wrote.

In previous trials of aerosolized surfactants, they noted, treatment was delivered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. “By using a separate, pacifier interface, both the aerosol delivery and [nasal continuous positive airway pressure] flow can be managed independently, which should allow for safer patient care.”

Dr. Cummings and colleagues also acknowledged several important limitations of their study, including its nonmasked, nonblinded design, and that it enrolled few infants with less than 28 weeks’ gestation. It takes 1-2 hours to deliver aerosolized calfactant, and “we did not want to delay definitive treatment.”

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Kirsten Glaser, MD, of the University of Leipzig (Germany), and Clyde Wright, MD of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the results promising. “Importantly, application of surfactant aerosols was well tolerated by using a modified nebulizer with a pacifier interface.”

The editorialists cautioned, however, of the study’s strong potential for selection bias. “Clinicians were aware that every infant randomly assigned to the nebulized surfactant arm received the intervention,” they wrote. “It is possible that clinicians delayed intubation and endotracheal surfactant instillation in this group, being biased by aerosolization and the hypothesis of lower risk of air leak and lung injury.”

Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright further lamented that there were no formal criteria for administering surfactant therapy, and that the infants in the study might not be representative of those most in need of treatment. Today, bronchopulmonary dysplasia “primarily affects infants born at less than 28 weeks’ gestational age,” a minority of the infants recruited for this study, they wrote, urging further investigation in this patient group.

In an interview, neonatologist Roger F. Soll, MD, the H. Wallace Professor of Neonatology at the Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont in Burlington, echoed the editorialists’ concerns that the study’s pragmatic design left a number of key questions unanswered. “It’s a promising study that laudably recruited on an order of magnitude more infants than any like it in the past,” Dr. Soll said. “And the kids who got the therapy seemed to do better, which is exciting. But with the broad entry criteria, the lack of formal diagnosis of RDS, and the outcome measures ultimately potentially biased by lack of blinding, it doesn’t give us the answers we need yet to consider aerosolized treatment.”

ONY Biotech, manufacturer of the study drug Infasurf, sponsored the trial. Dr. Cummings and one coauthor disclosed consulting arrangements with the sponsor, and another coauthor is an employee of the sponsor. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their editorial; Dr. Wright’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soll is president of the Vermont Oxford Network and coordinating editor of Cochrane Neonatal.
 

SOURCE: Cummings JJ et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021576.

Nebulized delivery of surfactant reduced the need for intubation and liquid surfactant administration by half among newborns with signs of respiratory distress syndrome, according to results from a large randomized, multicenter trial.

Neonatologists have long sought alternatives to intubation for administering surfactant to newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). An effective noninvasive aerosolized treatment has remained elusive, with small clinical trials that have produced mixed results.

In research published in Pediatrics, James J. Cummings, MD, of Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, and colleagues, randomized 457 infants (mean 33 weeks’ gestational age) with signs of RDS to either usual care or a nebulized bovine surfactant. Infants were recruited at 22 neonatal ICUs in the United States. Investigators were not blinded to treatment allocation and the decision to intubate was left up to the individual treating physician, because to do so, the authors wrote, would add “pragmatic strength” to the study, and “be ethically compliant with the infant’s best interest.”

Infants in the study received usual care or up to three treatments 4 or more hours apart of 35 mg/mL calfactant suspension, 210 mg phospholipid/kg body weight delivered into the mouth through a nebulizer modified with a pacifier. Dr. Cummings and colleagues found that intubation and liquid surfactant administration within the first 4 days after birth was 26% in the intervention group and 50% in the usual care group (P < .001).

The results remained significant after investigators adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, age when randomized, sex, delivery mode, and antenatal steroids. Rates of intubation for surfactant administration were lower for infants in the intervention group in all gestational age brackets except the youngest (23-24 weeks); all of these infants needed intubation. Respiratory support at days 3, 7, and 28 did not differ between study groups.

“Our study is the first to reveal the efficacy of an aerosolized surfactant delivery system that does not require a respiratory circuit interface,” the investigators wrote.

In previous trials of aerosolized surfactants, they noted, treatment was delivered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. “By using a separate, pacifier interface, both the aerosol delivery and [nasal continuous positive airway pressure] flow can be managed independently, which should allow for safer patient care.”

Dr. Cummings and colleagues also acknowledged several important limitations of their study, including its nonmasked, nonblinded design, and that it enrolled few infants with less than 28 weeks’ gestation. It takes 1-2 hours to deliver aerosolized calfactant, and “we did not want to delay definitive treatment.”

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Kirsten Glaser, MD, of the University of Leipzig (Germany), and Clyde Wright, MD of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the results promising. “Importantly, application of surfactant aerosols was well tolerated by using a modified nebulizer with a pacifier interface.”

The editorialists cautioned, however, of the study’s strong potential for selection bias. “Clinicians were aware that every infant randomly assigned to the nebulized surfactant arm received the intervention,” they wrote. “It is possible that clinicians delayed intubation and endotracheal surfactant instillation in this group, being biased by aerosolization and the hypothesis of lower risk of air leak and lung injury.”

Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright further lamented that there were no formal criteria for administering surfactant therapy, and that the infants in the study might not be representative of those most in need of treatment. Today, bronchopulmonary dysplasia “primarily affects infants born at less than 28 weeks’ gestational age,” a minority of the infants recruited for this study, they wrote, urging further investigation in this patient group.

In an interview, neonatologist Roger F. Soll, MD, the H. Wallace Professor of Neonatology at the Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont in Burlington, echoed the editorialists’ concerns that the study’s pragmatic design left a number of key questions unanswered. “It’s a promising study that laudably recruited on an order of magnitude more infants than any like it in the past,” Dr. Soll said. “And the kids who got the therapy seemed to do better, which is exciting. But with the broad entry criteria, the lack of formal diagnosis of RDS, and the outcome measures ultimately potentially biased by lack of blinding, it doesn’t give us the answers we need yet to consider aerosolized treatment.”

ONY Biotech, manufacturer of the study drug Infasurf, sponsored the trial. Dr. Cummings and one coauthor disclosed consulting arrangements with the sponsor, and another coauthor is an employee of the sponsor. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their editorial; Dr. Wright’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soll is president of the Vermont Oxford Network and coordinating editor of Cochrane Neonatal.
 

SOURCE: Cummings JJ et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021576.

Nebulized delivery of surfactant reduced the need for intubation and liquid surfactant administration by half among newborns with signs of respiratory distress syndrome, according to results from a large randomized, multicenter trial.

Neonatologists have long sought alternatives to intubation for administering surfactant to newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). An effective noninvasive aerosolized treatment has remained elusive, with small clinical trials that have produced mixed results.

In research published in Pediatrics, James J. Cummings, MD, of Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, and colleagues, randomized 457 infants (mean 33 weeks’ gestational age) with signs of RDS to either usual care or a nebulized bovine surfactant. Infants were recruited at 22 neonatal ICUs in the United States. Investigators were not blinded to treatment allocation and the decision to intubate was left up to the individual treating physician, because to do so, the authors wrote, would add “pragmatic strength” to the study, and “be ethically compliant with the infant’s best interest.”

Infants in the study received usual care or up to three treatments 4 or more hours apart of 35 mg/mL calfactant suspension, 210 mg phospholipid/kg body weight delivered into the mouth through a nebulizer modified with a pacifier. Dr. Cummings and colleagues found that intubation and liquid surfactant administration within the first 4 days after birth was 26% in the intervention group and 50% in the usual care group (P < .001).

The results remained significant after investigators adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, age when randomized, sex, delivery mode, and antenatal steroids. Rates of intubation for surfactant administration were lower for infants in the intervention group in all gestational age brackets except the youngest (23-24 weeks); all of these infants needed intubation. Respiratory support at days 3, 7, and 28 did not differ between study groups.

“Our study is the first to reveal the efficacy of an aerosolized surfactant delivery system that does not require a respiratory circuit interface,” the investigators wrote.

In previous trials of aerosolized surfactants, they noted, treatment was delivered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. “By using a separate, pacifier interface, both the aerosol delivery and [nasal continuous positive airway pressure] flow can be managed independently, which should allow for safer patient care.”

Dr. Cummings and colleagues also acknowledged several important limitations of their study, including its nonmasked, nonblinded design, and that it enrolled few infants with less than 28 weeks’ gestation. It takes 1-2 hours to deliver aerosolized calfactant, and “we did not want to delay definitive treatment.”

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Kirsten Glaser, MD, of the University of Leipzig (Germany), and Clyde Wright, MD of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the results promising. “Importantly, application of surfactant aerosols was well tolerated by using a modified nebulizer with a pacifier interface.”

The editorialists cautioned, however, of the study’s strong potential for selection bias. “Clinicians were aware that every infant randomly assigned to the nebulized surfactant arm received the intervention,” they wrote. “It is possible that clinicians delayed intubation and endotracheal surfactant instillation in this group, being biased by aerosolization and the hypothesis of lower risk of air leak and lung injury.”

Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright further lamented that there were no formal criteria for administering surfactant therapy, and that the infants in the study might not be representative of those most in need of treatment. Today, bronchopulmonary dysplasia “primarily affects infants born at less than 28 weeks’ gestational age,” a minority of the infants recruited for this study, they wrote, urging further investigation in this patient group.

In an interview, neonatologist Roger F. Soll, MD, the H. Wallace Professor of Neonatology at the Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont in Burlington, echoed the editorialists’ concerns that the study’s pragmatic design left a number of key questions unanswered. “It’s a promising study that laudably recruited on an order of magnitude more infants than any like it in the past,” Dr. Soll said. “And the kids who got the therapy seemed to do better, which is exciting. But with the broad entry criteria, the lack of formal diagnosis of RDS, and the outcome measures ultimately potentially biased by lack of blinding, it doesn’t give us the answers we need yet to consider aerosolized treatment.”

ONY Biotech, manufacturer of the study drug Infasurf, sponsored the trial. Dr. Cummings and one coauthor disclosed consulting arrangements with the sponsor, and another coauthor is an employee of the sponsor. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their editorial; Dr. Wright’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soll is president of the Vermont Oxford Network and coordinating editor of Cochrane Neonatal.
 

SOURCE: Cummings JJ et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021576.

Things will change. That is a constant. The practice of pediatrics will be different in the future. The pandemic has changed some things; mostly it has accelerated changes, advancements, improvements, and losses that were already occurring. Telemedicine will play a more prominent role in the future. The finances of solo and small-group practice have become more difficult. What will the new practice of pediatrics look like, and is it what you want to come to work each day to do?

IMAGELAGOON02/Thinkstock

As I wrote my prior column on the character traits/virtues of an admirable physician, I also began brainstorming this column on the traits of an admirable profession. Then the American Academy of Pediatrics’ virtual National Conference & Exhibition had many presentations encouraging pediatricians to adopt a conglomeration of activities in their offices. I became skeptical. Which should be selected? To make a wise choice, I review the major goals of medicine, which I have evolved to embrace as the quadruple aims.

First and hopefully always foremost, the health professions are dedicated to the health of their patients and, hopefully, the population at large. This trait dates to the Hippocratic Oath.

Second, physicians have a stewardship over a vast collection of knowledge, skills, resources, and funds. When I started my career, U.S. health care had increased from 6% of the gross domestic product to 9%, nearly twice that of other developed nations, and was expanding rapidly, contributing to widespread economic problems including the national debt. The health economists of the 1980’s made dire predictions that the nation was headed up to 12% of the GDP, which would cause the sky to start falling. Last I checked U.S. health care is approaching 18% of the GDP. The sky seems intact, although the oceans are rising and the hillsides are burning.

Managed care of the 1990s became focused on the consumer experience. Evaluations of physicians and nurses became dependent on consumer surveys. I recall one survey about the care I personally had received as day surgery. It was mostly about scheduling, being greeted on arrival, the waiting room, and other fluff. Only 1 of the over 20 questions had any bearing on whether I thought the diagnosis was correct, the treatment was effective, or my physician was competent. As a cancer patient, my priorities were not aligned with that survey’s concept of quality.

From 2008, I recall the Triple Aim: “Improving the U.S. health care system requires simultaneous pursuit of three aims: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”

Over the ensuing decade, physician wellness has been added to make a quadruple aim. If the system isn’t professionally rewarding, burnout occurs. Skills and experience are lost. The best and brightest are not attracted to the specialty. Quality goes down. So physicians must factor this into decisions about the future of pediatrics.

There are many social determinants of health that have large impacts on the population health of children, and it does not necessarily follow that I should spend my patient care time on those determinants. As a professional, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am treating important problems that match my extensive (and expensive) training, knowledge, skills, and experience.

I recently read a persuasive argument that caring for ADHD is an important and doable part of modern general pediatrics. I agree, but I agreed with the proponent’s idea 25 years ago when I joined a large group and saw my own ADHD patients. Change can be slow.

Pharmacology options for anxiety have become safer, more effective, and better understood in children. General pediatricians may now be able to provide important, earlier, and accessible intervention for pediatric anxiety and other mental health issues.

Food insecurity is a worsening issue during the pandemic, but not one which I have specialized abilities to address. A brochure listing available local resources could be posted in waiting rooms and exam rooms. Is spending time asking about it during a visit the best use of a pediatrician’s time? That is a choice a professional needs to make. It may depend on your patient panel and community resources. In the past, I was more inclined to focus on medical care and donate the extra income to my church’s food bank. But the world has changed. Perhaps the pediatrician’s office of the 2020s is a department store, with social workers, psychologists, and therapists located under the same roof. It reminds me of the Mayo model. Wealthy people would travel to Rochester for an executive physical. That physical would frequently recommend seeing a couple specialists before leaving town. It is an effective model but also luxurious.

Racism causes major harms, both to physical health and mental health. Is asking about it a wise use of limited time for well-child visits? What resources will you offer?

Climate change, hurricanes, and wildfires are harming children. Is debating the issue with your patient’s parents productive? I am zealous about the topic. I spend considerable time and money promoting the credibility of science within various religious organizations, but I try to avoid bringing politics into my interactions with patients.

As a professional, your choices may be different. Many people are telling you what you should care about. The executive well-child visit would be beneficial, but it would also take 2 hours. Don’t be misled into spending too much effort on issues not in your expertise. Choose wisely.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Things will change. That is a constant. The practice of pediatrics will be different in the future. The pandemic has changed some things; mostly it has accelerated changes, advancements, improvements, and losses that were already occurring. Telemedicine will play a more prominent role in the future. The finances of solo and small-group practice have become more difficult. What will the new practice of pediatrics look like, and is it what you want to come to work each day to do?

IMAGELAGOON02/Thinkstock

As I wrote my prior column on the character traits/virtues of an admirable physician, I also began brainstorming this column on the traits of an admirable profession. Then the American Academy of Pediatrics’ virtual National Conference & Exhibition had many presentations encouraging pediatricians to adopt a conglomeration of activities in their offices. I became skeptical. Which should be selected? To make a wise choice, I review the major goals of medicine, which I have evolved to embrace as the quadruple aims.

First and hopefully always foremost, the health professions are dedicated to the health of their patients and, hopefully, the population at large. This trait dates to the Hippocratic Oath.

Second, physicians have a stewardship over a vast collection of knowledge, skills, resources, and funds. When I started my career, U.S. health care had increased from 6% of the gross domestic product to 9%, nearly twice that of other developed nations, and was expanding rapidly, contributing to widespread economic problems including the national debt. The health economists of the 1980’s made dire predictions that the nation was headed up to 12% of the GDP, which would cause the sky to start falling. Last I checked U.S. health care is approaching 18% of the GDP. The sky seems intact, although the oceans are rising and the hillsides are burning.

Managed care of the 1990s became focused on the consumer experience. Evaluations of physicians and nurses became dependent on consumer surveys. I recall one survey about the care I personally had received as day surgery. It was mostly about scheduling, being greeted on arrival, the waiting room, and other fluff. Only 1 of the over 20 questions had any bearing on whether I thought the diagnosis was correct, the treatment was effective, or my physician was competent. As a cancer patient, my priorities were not aligned with that survey’s concept of quality.

From 2008, I recall the Triple Aim: “Improving the U.S. health care system requires simultaneous pursuit of three aims: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”

Over the ensuing decade, physician wellness has been added to make a quadruple aim. If the system isn’t professionally rewarding, burnout occurs. Skills and experience are lost. The best and brightest are not attracted to the specialty. Quality goes down. So physicians must factor this into decisions about the future of pediatrics.

There are many social determinants of health that have large impacts on the population health of children, and it does not necessarily follow that I should spend my patient care time on those determinants. As a professional, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am treating important problems that match my extensive (and expensive) training, knowledge, skills, and experience.

I recently read a persuasive argument that caring for ADHD is an important and doable part of modern general pediatrics. I agree, but I agreed with the proponent’s idea 25 years ago when I joined a large group and saw my own ADHD patients. Change can be slow.

Pharmacology options for anxiety have become safer, more effective, and better understood in children. General pediatricians may now be able to provide important, earlier, and accessible intervention for pediatric anxiety and other mental health issues.

Food insecurity is a worsening issue during the pandemic, but not one which I have specialized abilities to address. A brochure listing available local resources could be posted in waiting rooms and exam rooms. Is spending time asking about it during a visit the best use of a pediatrician’s time? That is a choice a professional needs to make. It may depend on your patient panel and community resources. In the past, I was more inclined to focus on medical care and donate the extra income to my church’s food bank. But the world has changed. Perhaps the pediatrician’s office of the 2020s is a department store, with social workers, psychologists, and therapists located under the same roof. It reminds me of the Mayo model. Wealthy people would travel to Rochester for an executive physical. That physical would frequently recommend seeing a couple specialists before leaving town. It is an effective model but also luxurious.

Racism causes major harms, both to physical health and mental health. Is asking about it a wise use of limited time for well-child visits? What resources will you offer?

Climate change, hurricanes, and wildfires are harming children. Is debating the issue with your patient’s parents productive? I am zealous about the topic. I spend considerable time and money promoting the credibility of science within various religious organizations, but I try to avoid bringing politics into my interactions with patients.

As a professional, your choices may be different. Many people are telling you what you should care about. The executive well-child visit would be beneficial, but it would also take 2 hours. Don’t be misled into spending too much effort on issues not in your expertise. Choose wisely.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Things will change. That is a constant. The practice of pediatrics will be different in the future. The pandemic has changed some things; mostly it has accelerated changes, advancements, improvements, and losses that were already occurring. Telemedicine will play a more prominent role in the future. The finances of solo and small-group practice have become more difficult. What will the new practice of pediatrics look like, and is it what you want to come to work each day to do?

IMAGELAGOON02/Thinkstock

As I wrote my prior column on the character traits/virtues of an admirable physician, I also began brainstorming this column on the traits of an admirable profession. Then the American Academy of Pediatrics’ virtual National Conference & Exhibition had many presentations encouraging pediatricians to adopt a conglomeration of activities in their offices. I became skeptical. Which should be selected? To make a wise choice, I review the major goals of medicine, which I have evolved to embrace as the quadruple aims.

First and hopefully always foremost, the health professions are dedicated to the health of their patients and, hopefully, the population at large. This trait dates to the Hippocratic Oath.

Second, physicians have a stewardship over a vast collection of knowledge, skills, resources, and funds. When I started my career, U.S. health care had increased from 6% of the gross domestic product to 9%, nearly twice that of other developed nations, and was expanding rapidly, contributing to widespread economic problems including the national debt. The health economists of the 1980’s made dire predictions that the nation was headed up to 12% of the GDP, which would cause the sky to start falling. Last I checked U.S. health care is approaching 18% of the GDP. The sky seems intact, although the oceans are rising and the hillsides are burning.

Managed care of the 1990s became focused on the consumer experience. Evaluations of physicians and nurses became dependent on consumer surveys. I recall one survey about the care I personally had received as day surgery. It was mostly about scheduling, being greeted on arrival, the waiting room, and other fluff. Only 1 of the over 20 questions had any bearing on whether I thought the diagnosis was correct, the treatment was effective, or my physician was competent. As a cancer patient, my priorities were not aligned with that survey’s concept of quality.

From 2008, I recall the Triple Aim: “Improving the U.S. health care system requires simultaneous pursuit of three aims: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”

Over the ensuing decade, physician wellness has been added to make a quadruple aim. If the system isn’t professionally rewarding, burnout occurs. Skills and experience are lost. The best and brightest are not attracted to the specialty. Quality goes down. So physicians must factor this into decisions about the future of pediatrics.

There are many social determinants of health that have large impacts on the population health of children, and it does not necessarily follow that I should spend my patient care time on those determinants. As a professional, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am treating important problems that match my extensive (and expensive) training, knowledge, skills, and experience.

I recently read a persuasive argument that caring for ADHD is an important and doable part of modern general pediatrics. I agree, but I agreed with the proponent’s idea 25 years ago when I joined a large group and saw my own ADHD patients. Change can be slow.

Pharmacology options for anxiety have become safer, more effective, and better understood in children. General pediatricians may now be able to provide important, earlier, and accessible intervention for pediatric anxiety and other mental health issues.

Food insecurity is a worsening issue during the pandemic, but not one which I have specialized abilities to address. A brochure listing available local resources could be posted in waiting rooms and exam rooms. Is spending time asking about it during a visit the best use of a pediatrician’s time? That is a choice a professional needs to make. It may depend on your patient panel and community resources. In the past, I was more inclined to focus on medical care and donate the extra income to my church’s food bank. But the world has changed. Perhaps the pediatrician’s office of the 2020s is a department store, with social workers, psychologists, and therapists located under the same roof. It reminds me of the Mayo model. Wealthy people would travel to Rochester for an executive physical. That physical would frequently recommend seeing a couple specialists before leaving town. It is an effective model but also luxurious.

Racism causes major harms, both to physical health and mental health. Is asking about it a wise use of limited time for well-child visits? What resources will you offer?

Climate change, hurricanes, and wildfires are harming children. Is debating the issue with your patient’s parents productive? I am zealous about the topic. I spend considerable time and money promoting the credibility of science within various religious organizations, but I try to avoid bringing politics into my interactions with patients.

As a professional, your choices may be different. Many people are telling you what you should care about. The executive well-child visit would be beneficial, but it would also take 2 hours. Don’t be misled into spending too much effort on issues not in your expertise. Choose wisely.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Most patients with COVID-19 will have a mild presentation and not require hospitalization or any treatment. Inpatient management revolves around the supportive management of the most common complications of severe COVID-19, which includes pneumonia, hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and septic shock.

Currently, there is no clinically proven specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. A few antivirals and treatment modalities have been studied and used, with the hope of decreasing mortality and improving recovery time for those with moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
 

Remdesivir

The antiviral remdesivir was the second drug to receive emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with an oxygen saturation less than 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that has shown in vitro antiviral activity against a range of RNA viruses. It acts by causing premature termination of viral RNA transcription. Remdesivir is administered intravenously and the recommended dose is 200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for various time courses.

A few clinical studies have reported benefits of remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends 5 days of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on noninvasive supplemental oxygen and 10 days treatment for those on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a randomized, uncontrolled, phase 3 trial, investigators compared 5-day (n = 200) versus 10-day (n = 197) courses of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical data revealed no differences in outcomes in the two groups.

Common reported adverse effects of the drug include elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and hematochezia. There is insufficient data on using remdesivir in patients requiring dialysis.
 

Corticosteroids

Is dexamethasone effective for treating COVID-19? In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, corticosteroids were not recommended with the fear that, if started too soon, you could blunt the body’s natural defense system and that could allow the virus to thrive. Recent clinical data has shown clinical benefits and decreased mortality with the use of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 infection because glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

The Recovery Trial was an open label study which used 6-mg once-daily doses of dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. The study concluded that the use of dexamethasone for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care.

Dexamethasone is recommended in COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. If dexamethasone is not available, alternative forms of steroids – prednisone, methylprednisolone, or hydrocortisone – can be used. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of other steroids provides the same benefit as dexamethasone.

Both the IDSA and National Institutes of Health guidelines have recommended the use of steroids. However, clinicians should closely monitor the adverse effects like hyperglycemia, secondary infections, psychiatric effects, and avascular necrosis.
 

Convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is a blood product believed to provide passive antibody therapy through the transmission of neutralizing viral antibodies. Convalescent plasma has been used for decades for different viral infections including the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus, polio, chicken pox, measles, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV.

On Aug. 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The FDA recommends neutralizing antibodies of at least 1:160. However, such assays have not been widely available and titers in plasma have often not been assessed prior to infusion.

There is no current standard recommended dosing. Most study protocols infuse 1-2 units of convalescent plasma for persons with COVID-19.

There is insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. Existing data suggest that, if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies.

The adverse effects of convalescent plasma is very similar to the receipt of other blood products, including allergic reactions to the plasma, transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and acquisition of infections, though the latter is rare because of the rigorous screening process.
 

Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 receptors. Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome that is associated with chimeric antigen–receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and for the treatment of rheumatologic disorders.

The interest in using tocilizumab to treat persons with COVID-19 is based on the observations that a subset of patients with COVID-19 develop a severe inflammatory response that can result in cytokine storm resulting in ARDS, multiorgan failure, and potentially death. Very high levels of IL-6 have been observed in these individuals, thereby suggesting IL-6 may play a central role in the acute clinical decompensation seen with severe COVID-19.

The optimal dosing of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 is not known. The FDA recommends dosing of tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome should not exceed 800 mg. There is limited data about the potential benefit of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. The COVACTA trial showed no difference between tocilizumab and placebo in regard to mortality. The time to hospital discharge was shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Reported adverse effects of tocilizumab include increase in ALT and AST, increased risk of serious infections (especially tuberculosis and invasive fungal infections), reactivation of hepatitis B virus, and rare reports of gastrointestinal perforation.
 

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) and its sister drug chloroquine, have been used for many decades as treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases. HCQ gained widespread popularity in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical studies showed that it had significant in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, which provided the rationale for its use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infection.

It was the first drug that was authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, On June 15, 2020, because of accumulating harmful data, the FDA revoked the emergency authorization use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.

Randomized controlled trials showed that patients treated with HCQ experienced a longer hospital stay with increase in mortality rates and increased likelihood of being placed on mechanical ventilation. In addition, studies revealed an increase in QT prolongation in patients treated with HCQ, especially when coadministered with azithromycin, which can lead to torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, and sudden cardiac death.

The IDSA and National Institutes of Health, both recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to treat COVID-19 because the harms outweigh the benefits, even if high quality RCTs were to become available in the future.
 

Other drugs

There have been experimental studies on other medications for the treatment of COVID-19, including losartan, amlodipine, ivermectin, famotidine, Anakinra, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, and Janus kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib. Additionally, a few supplements such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings for COVID-19 treatment. Polyclonal antibodies are being investigated in phase 3 trials. However, the data is insufficient, and the effectiveness of these drugs is unknown. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel recommends against the use of these treatment modalities.

Dr Tiyouh is an infectious diseases physician at Keystone Health in Chambersburg, Pa. Dr. Tenneti completed medical school at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre in Karnataka, India, and is interested in pursuing internal medicine residency. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Sources

Goldman JD et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.

Beigel JH et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Wang Y et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-78.

National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

Joyner et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-7.

Luo P et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Workers: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

University of Washington. COVID-19 Treatments: Prescribing Information, Clinical Studies, and Slide Decks.

Most patients with COVID-19 will have a mild presentation and not require hospitalization or any treatment. Inpatient management revolves around the supportive management of the most common complications of severe COVID-19, which includes pneumonia, hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and septic shock.

Currently, there is no clinically proven specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. A few antivirals and treatment modalities have been studied and used, with the hope of decreasing mortality and improving recovery time for those with moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
 

Remdesivir

The antiviral remdesivir was the second drug to receive emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with an oxygen saturation less than 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that has shown in vitro antiviral activity against a range of RNA viruses. It acts by causing premature termination of viral RNA transcription. Remdesivir is administered intravenously and the recommended dose is 200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for various time courses.

A few clinical studies have reported benefits of remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends 5 days of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on noninvasive supplemental oxygen and 10 days treatment for those on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a randomized, uncontrolled, phase 3 trial, investigators compared 5-day (n = 200) versus 10-day (n = 197) courses of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical data revealed no differences in outcomes in the two groups.

Common reported adverse effects of the drug include elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and hematochezia. There is insufficient data on using remdesivir in patients requiring dialysis.
 

Corticosteroids

Is dexamethasone effective for treating COVID-19? In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, corticosteroids were not recommended with the fear that, if started too soon, you could blunt the body’s natural defense system and that could allow the virus to thrive. Recent clinical data has shown clinical benefits and decreased mortality with the use of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 infection because glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

The Recovery Trial was an open label study which used 6-mg once-daily doses of dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. The study concluded that the use of dexamethasone for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care.

Dexamethasone is recommended in COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. If dexamethasone is not available, alternative forms of steroids – prednisone, methylprednisolone, or hydrocortisone – can be used. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of other steroids provides the same benefit as dexamethasone.

Both the IDSA and National Institutes of Health guidelines have recommended the use of steroids. However, clinicians should closely monitor the adverse effects like hyperglycemia, secondary infections, psychiatric effects, and avascular necrosis.
 

Convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is a blood product believed to provide passive antibody therapy through the transmission of neutralizing viral antibodies. Convalescent plasma has been used for decades for different viral infections including the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus, polio, chicken pox, measles, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV.

On Aug. 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The FDA recommends neutralizing antibodies of at least 1:160. However, such assays have not been widely available and titers in plasma have often not been assessed prior to infusion.

There is no current standard recommended dosing. Most study protocols infuse 1-2 units of convalescent plasma for persons with COVID-19.

There is insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. Existing data suggest that, if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies.

The adverse effects of convalescent plasma is very similar to the receipt of other blood products, including allergic reactions to the plasma, transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and acquisition of infections, though the latter is rare because of the rigorous screening process.
 

Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 receptors. Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome that is associated with chimeric antigen–receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and for the treatment of rheumatologic disorders.

The interest in using tocilizumab to treat persons with COVID-19 is based on the observations that a subset of patients with COVID-19 develop a severe inflammatory response that can result in cytokine storm resulting in ARDS, multiorgan failure, and potentially death. Very high levels of IL-6 have been observed in these individuals, thereby suggesting IL-6 may play a central role in the acute clinical decompensation seen with severe COVID-19.

The optimal dosing of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 is not known. The FDA recommends dosing of tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome should not exceed 800 mg. There is limited data about the potential benefit of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. The COVACTA trial showed no difference between tocilizumab and placebo in regard to mortality. The time to hospital discharge was shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Reported adverse effects of tocilizumab include increase in ALT and AST, increased risk of serious infections (especially tuberculosis and invasive fungal infections), reactivation of hepatitis B virus, and rare reports of gastrointestinal perforation.
 

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) and its sister drug chloroquine, have been used for many decades as treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases. HCQ gained widespread popularity in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical studies showed that it had significant in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, which provided the rationale for its use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infection.

It was the first drug that was authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, On June 15, 2020, because of accumulating harmful data, the FDA revoked the emergency authorization use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.

Randomized controlled trials showed that patients treated with HCQ experienced a longer hospital stay with increase in mortality rates and increased likelihood of being placed on mechanical ventilation. In addition, studies revealed an increase in QT prolongation in patients treated with HCQ, especially when coadministered with azithromycin, which can lead to torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, and sudden cardiac death.

The IDSA and National Institutes of Health, both recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to treat COVID-19 because the harms outweigh the benefits, even if high quality RCTs were to become available in the future.
 

Other drugs

There have been experimental studies on other medications for the treatment of COVID-19, including losartan, amlodipine, ivermectin, famotidine, Anakinra, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, and Janus kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib. Additionally, a few supplements such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings for COVID-19 treatment. Polyclonal antibodies are being investigated in phase 3 trials. However, the data is insufficient, and the effectiveness of these drugs is unknown. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel recommends against the use of these treatment modalities.

Dr Tiyouh is an infectious diseases physician at Keystone Health in Chambersburg, Pa. Dr. Tenneti completed medical school at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre in Karnataka, India, and is interested in pursuing internal medicine residency. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Sources

Goldman JD et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.

Beigel JH et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Wang Y et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-78.

National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

Joyner et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-7.

Luo P et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Workers: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

University of Washington. COVID-19 Treatments: Prescribing Information, Clinical Studies, and Slide Decks.

Most patients with COVID-19 will have a mild presentation and not require hospitalization or any treatment. Inpatient management revolves around the supportive management of the most common complications of severe COVID-19, which includes pneumonia, hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and septic shock.

Currently, there is no clinically proven specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. A few antivirals and treatment modalities have been studied and used, with the hope of decreasing mortality and improving recovery time for those with moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
 

Remdesivir

The antiviral remdesivir was the second drug to receive emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with an oxygen saturation less than 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that has shown in vitro antiviral activity against a range of RNA viruses. It acts by causing premature termination of viral RNA transcription. Remdesivir is administered intravenously and the recommended dose is 200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for various time courses.

A few clinical studies have reported benefits of remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends 5 days of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on noninvasive supplemental oxygen and 10 days treatment for those on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a randomized, uncontrolled, phase 3 trial, investigators compared 5-day (n = 200) versus 10-day (n = 197) courses of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical data revealed no differences in outcomes in the two groups.

Common reported adverse effects of the drug include elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and hematochezia. There is insufficient data on using remdesivir in patients requiring dialysis.
 

Corticosteroids

Is dexamethasone effective for treating COVID-19? In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, corticosteroids were not recommended with the fear that, if started too soon, you could blunt the body’s natural defense system and that could allow the virus to thrive. Recent clinical data has shown clinical benefits and decreased mortality with the use of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 infection because glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

The Recovery Trial was an open label study which used 6-mg once-daily doses of dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. The study concluded that the use of dexamethasone for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care.

Dexamethasone is recommended in COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. If dexamethasone is not available, alternative forms of steroids – prednisone, methylprednisolone, or hydrocortisone – can be used. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of other steroids provides the same benefit as dexamethasone.

Both the IDSA and National Institutes of Health guidelines have recommended the use of steroids. However, clinicians should closely monitor the adverse effects like hyperglycemia, secondary infections, psychiatric effects, and avascular necrosis.
 

Convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is a blood product believed to provide passive antibody therapy through the transmission of neutralizing viral antibodies. Convalescent plasma has been used for decades for different viral infections including the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus, polio, chicken pox, measles, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV.

On Aug. 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The FDA recommends neutralizing antibodies of at least 1:160. However, such assays have not been widely available and titers in plasma have often not been assessed prior to infusion.

There is no current standard recommended dosing. Most study protocols infuse 1-2 units of convalescent plasma for persons with COVID-19.

There is insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. Existing data suggest that, if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies.

The adverse effects of convalescent plasma is very similar to the receipt of other blood products, including allergic reactions to the plasma, transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and acquisition of infections, though the latter is rare because of the rigorous screening process.
 

Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 receptors. Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome that is associated with chimeric antigen–receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and for the treatment of rheumatologic disorders.

The interest in using tocilizumab to treat persons with COVID-19 is based on the observations that a subset of patients with COVID-19 develop a severe inflammatory response that can result in cytokine storm resulting in ARDS, multiorgan failure, and potentially death. Very high levels of IL-6 have been observed in these individuals, thereby suggesting IL-6 may play a central role in the acute clinical decompensation seen with severe COVID-19.

The optimal dosing of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 is not known. The FDA recommends dosing of tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome should not exceed 800 mg. There is limited data about the potential benefit of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. The COVACTA trial showed no difference between tocilizumab and placebo in regard to mortality. The time to hospital discharge was shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Reported adverse effects of tocilizumab include increase in ALT and AST, increased risk of serious infections (especially tuberculosis and invasive fungal infections), reactivation of hepatitis B virus, and rare reports of gastrointestinal perforation.
 

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) and its sister drug chloroquine, have been used for many decades as treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases. HCQ gained widespread popularity in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical studies showed that it had significant in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, which provided the rationale for its use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infection.

It was the first drug that was authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, On June 15, 2020, because of accumulating harmful data, the FDA revoked the emergency authorization use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.

Randomized controlled trials showed that patients treated with HCQ experienced a longer hospital stay with increase in mortality rates and increased likelihood of being placed on mechanical ventilation. In addition, studies revealed an increase in QT prolongation in patients treated with HCQ, especially when coadministered with azithromycin, which can lead to torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, and sudden cardiac death.

The IDSA and National Institutes of Health, both recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to treat COVID-19 because the harms outweigh the benefits, even if high quality RCTs were to become available in the future.
 

Other drugs

There have been experimental studies on other medications for the treatment of COVID-19, including losartan, amlodipine, ivermectin, famotidine, Anakinra, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, and Janus kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib. Additionally, a few supplements such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings for COVID-19 treatment. Polyclonal antibodies are being investigated in phase 3 trials. However, the data is insufficient, and the effectiveness of these drugs is unknown. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel recommends against the use of these treatment modalities.

Dr Tiyouh is an infectious diseases physician at Keystone Health in Chambersburg, Pa. Dr. Tenneti completed medical school at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre in Karnataka, India, and is interested in pursuing internal medicine residency. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Sources

Goldman JD et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.

Beigel JH et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Wang Y et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-78.

National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

Joyner et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-7.

Luo P et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Workers: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

University of Washington. COVID-19 Treatments: Prescribing Information, Clinical Studies, and Slide Decks.

An excisional biopsy revealed that this was an eccrine poroma, a benign neoplasm of sweat gland tissue in the epidermis.

This lesion was clearly not a wart, as it lacked the common verrucous and keratotic features one would expect, and it did not respond to wart treatments. Other diagnoses that might be considered with a lesion like this include pyogenic granuloma, periungual fibroma, and squamous cell carcinoma.

Poromas are well demarcated papules that grow slowly or are stable in size. They are most commonly flesh colored and smooth, but poromas may also appear verrucous, pigmented, or ulcerated. They are usually found on acral skin—particularly the palms or soles. Due to their location, poromas bleed easily, which is what usually prompts patients to seek care. Friable lesions can mimic acral melanoma.

Poromas occur most often in patients over 40 years of age and are evenly distributed among sexes and skin types. Cases have been associated with trauma, radiation, and chemotherapy. Although exceedingly rare, malignant transformation can occur in the form of eccrine porocarcinoma—a larger tumor that can grow rapidly and that has metastatic potential.

Treatment is optional—but desirable—when lesions are painful or bleed easily. Surgical excision is curative. Shave biopsy or curettage coupled with electrocautery of the base is also curative. Recurrence rates are very low with either method of treatment.

In this case, an excisional biopsy of the lateral nail fold was both diagnostic and curative (second image). The patient remained clear 9 months after treatment.

‌

Text and photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. (Photo copyright retained.)

An excisional biopsy revealed that this was an eccrine poroma, a benign neoplasm of sweat gland tissue in the epidermis.

This lesion was clearly not a wart, as it lacked the common verrucous and keratotic features one would expect, and it did not respond to wart treatments. Other diagnoses that might be considered with a lesion like this include pyogenic granuloma, periungual fibroma, and squamous cell carcinoma.

Poromas are well demarcated papules that grow slowly or are stable in size. They are most commonly flesh colored and smooth, but poromas may also appear verrucous, pigmented, or ulcerated. They are usually found on acral skin—particularly the palms or soles. Due to their location, poromas bleed easily, which is what usually prompts patients to seek care. Friable lesions can mimic acral melanoma.

Poromas occur most often in patients over 40 years of age and are evenly distributed among sexes and skin types. Cases have been associated with trauma, radiation, and chemotherapy. Although exceedingly rare, malignant transformation can occur in the form of eccrine porocarcinoma—a larger tumor that can grow rapidly and that has metastatic potential.

Treatment is optional—but desirable—when lesions are painful or bleed easily. Surgical excision is curative. Shave biopsy or curettage coupled with electrocautery of the base is also curative. Recurrence rates are very low with either method of treatment.

In this case, an excisional biopsy of the lateral nail fold was both diagnostic and curative (second image). The patient remained clear 9 months after treatment.

‌

Text and photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. (Photo copyright retained.)

An excisional biopsy revealed that this was an eccrine poroma, a benign neoplasm of sweat gland tissue in the epidermis.

This lesion was clearly not a wart, as it lacked the common verrucous and keratotic features one would expect, and it did not respond to wart treatments. Other diagnoses that might be considered with a lesion like this include pyogenic granuloma, periungual fibroma, and squamous cell carcinoma.

Poromas are well demarcated papules that grow slowly or are stable in size. They are most commonly flesh colored and smooth, but poromas may also appear verrucous, pigmented, or ulcerated. They are usually found on acral skin—particularly the palms or soles. Due to their location, poromas bleed easily, which is what usually prompts patients to seek care. Friable lesions can mimic acral melanoma.

Poromas occur most often in patients over 40 years of age and are evenly distributed among sexes and skin types. Cases have been associated with trauma, radiation, and chemotherapy. Although exceedingly rare, malignant transformation can occur in the form of eccrine porocarcinoma—a larger tumor that can grow rapidly and that has metastatic potential.

Treatment is optional—but desirable—when lesions are painful or bleed easily. Surgical excision is curative. Shave biopsy or curettage coupled with electrocautery of the base is also curative. Recurrence rates are very low with either method of treatment.

In this case, an excisional biopsy of the lateral nail fold was both diagnostic and curative (second image). The patient remained clear 9 months after treatment.

‌

Text and photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. (Photo copyright retained.)

Cardiologists are already old hands at virtual meetings this year and are fast becoming experts on Zoom and other teleconferencing platforms, if not on how to unmute their microphones.

With expectations perhaps elevated and the new communications genre’s novelty on the wane, the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020 has a chance to both innovate with familiar formats and captivate with the field’s latest research findings.

Although the virtual AHA 2020 might not satisfy longings for face-to-face networking, shop talk, or kidding around over coffee, it will feature many traditional elements of the live conferences adapted for ear buds and small screens. They include late-breaking science (LBS) presentations and panel discussions, poster and live oral abstract presentations, meet-the-trialist talks, fireside-chat discussion forums, early career events, and satellite symposia.

The event may well hold lessons for future iterations of AHA Scientific Sessions in the postpandemic world, which some foresee as, potentially, an amalgam of the time-honored live format and a robust, complementary online presence.

Late-Breaking Science 1. Friday, November 13, 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM CST

The LBS sessions launch with the GALACTIC-HF trial, which — the world recently learned — may expand the burgeoning list of meds shown to improve clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In cursory top-line results announced last month, those in the trial of more than 8000 patients who were randomly assigned to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (Amgen/Cytokinetics/Servier) showed a slight but significant benefit for the primary end point of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF events. The hazard ratio (HR), compared with standard care, was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86 - 0.99; P = .025), noted a press release from Amgen.

Among the announcement’s few other details was a short take on safety outcomes: no difference in risk for “adverse events, including major ischemic cardiac events,” between the active and control groups. The presentation is sure to provide further insights and caveats, if any, along with other information crucial to the study’s interpretation.

Next on the schedule is the closely watched AFFIRM-AHF, billed as the first major outcomes trial of iron administration to iron-deficient patients with acute HF. It randomly assigned more than 1000 such patients to receive IV ferric carboxymaltose or a placebo. The first dose was given in-hospital and subsequent doses at home for 24 weeks or until patients were no longer iron deficient. They were followed to 1 year for the primary end point of recurrent HF hospitalizations or CV death.

The session wraps with the VITAL Rhythm trial, a substudy of the doubly randomized VITAL trial that explored the effects of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on CV and cancer risk in more than 25,000 patients in the community. The substudy explored the effects of two active therapies, a preparation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (Omacor, Reliant Pharmaceuticals) or vitamin D3 supplements, on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) as the primary end point; it also looked at risk for sudden death.
 

Late-Breaking Science 2. Friday, November 13, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

Dominating the session in two presentations, the (TIPS)-3 trial explored a polypill primary-prevention strategy and daily aspirin with vitamin D supplementation in three separate placebo-controlled comparisons in more than 5700 “intermediate risk” participants 55 years and older, mostly in developing countries.

The daily polypill in this trial is a combination of hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, atenolol 100 mg, ramipril 10 mg, and simvastatin 40 mg; aspirin was given at 75 mg daily and vitamin D at 60,000 IU monthly.

The participants are followed for a primary end point composed of major CV disease, HF, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ischemia-driven revascularization for the polypill comparison; CV events or cancer for the aspirin comparison; and fracture risk for the vitamin D component of the trial.

In the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study (SCAPIS), presented third in the session, a random sample of adults from throughout Sweden, projected at about 30,000, underwent a 2-day evaluation for metabolic risk factors plus ultrasound and coronary and lung CT scans. The group has been followed for risks for myocardial infarction (MI), sudden death, and other cardiac diseases; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other lung disorders.
 

Late-Breaking Science 3. Saturday, November 14, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

The field may learn more mechanistically about MI associated with nonobstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA) than ever before from the Heart Attack Research Program-Imaging Study (HARP). The observational study is enrolling a projected 450 patients with suspected MI and ischemic symptoms who were referred for cardiac catheterization.

Their evaluation includes coronary optical coherence tomographic (OCT) scanning and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for evidence of coronary plaque disruption as the primary end point. The patients are to be followed for 10 years for a composite of death, unstable angina, stroke, recurrent MI, diagnostic or interventional catheterization, and cardiac hospitalization.

The major direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) comparisons with warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) didn’t include many patients with prosthetic valve implants. In contrast, the RIVER trial enrolled 1005 adults with either persistent or paroxysmal AF and bioprosthetic mitral valves and assigned them to rivaroxaban 20 mg or the vitamin K antagonist.

The presentation will include the noninferiority primary outcome of major clinical events, which is stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), major bleeding, death from any cause, valve thrombosis, other systemic embolism, or HF hospitalization over 12 months.

This session also includes ALPHEUS, a trial pitting ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) against mainstay clopidogrel in a setting that is mostly uncharted for such comparisons, elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

About 1900 patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to a month of treatment with either agent on top of continuous aspirin. The primary end point is PCI-related MI or myocardial injury within 48 hours of the procedure.
 

Late-Breaking Science 4. Sunday, November 15, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

The Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo (SAMSON) trial may be one of the AHA 2020 frontrunners for early buzz and anticipation. So it’s with some irony that it’s also among the smallest of the LBS studies, at 60 patients, which was nonetheless considered sufficient due to its unusual design.

SAMSON is the latest and perhaps most rigorous attempt to clarify whether symptoms, especially muscle pain or discomfort, attributed to statins by many patients are pharmacologic in origin or, rather, a nocebo effect from negative expectations about statin side effects.

The study patients, all of whom had previously halted statins because of side effects, were assigned to follow three separate regimens, each for month, in a randomized order; they did that four times, for a total of 12 months. The regimens consisted of atorvastatin 20 mg daily, a placebo, or neither.

Patients kept daily logs of any perceived side effects. Parity between side effects experienced on the statin and the placebo would point to a nocebo effect, whereas a significant excess on atorvastatin would suggest they are direct drug effects.

The session also features two randomized trials each on a unique omega-3 fatty acid preparation for either secondary prevention or high-risk primary prevention, in both cases compared with a corn-oil placebo.

The Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Elderly Patients with Myocardial Infarction (OMEMI) trial randomly assigned more than 1000 elderly post-MI patients to take Pikasol (Orkla Care) at 1.8 g EPA and DHA per day or the placebo. It looked for all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularization, or hospitalization for new or worsened HF over 24 months.

The STRENGTH trial, with a planned enrollment of about 13,000 high-vascular-risk patients, looked primarily at the effect of daily treatment with Epanova (AstraZeneca), which also contains DHA and EPA, on the composite of CV death, nonfatal MI or stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina. The trial was halted early for low likelihood of benefit, AstraZeneca announced in January of this year.
 

Late-Breaking Science 5. Sunday, November 15, 7:15 PM - 8:30 PM CST

Slated for the session is the primary analysis of the PIONEER 3 trial, conducted in the United States, Europe, and Japan. It compared the BuMA Supreme biodegradable drug-coated stent (SinoMed) with the durable Xience (Abbott Vascular) and Promus (Boston Scientific) drug-eluting stents. The trial followed more than 1600 patients treated for chronic stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for the 1-year composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related MI, and clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.
 

Late-Breaking Science 6. Monday, November 16, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

The EARLY-AF trial enrolled 303 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF suitable for catheter ablation, assigning them to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by cryoablation using the Arctic Front (Medtronic) system or antiarrhythmic drug therapy for rhythm control. The primary end point is time to recurrence of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, as determined by implantable loop recorder. Patients will also be followed for symptoms and arrhythmia burden.

Also in the session, the SEARCH-AF study randomized almost 400 patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were engaged subacutely with one of two commercial portable cardiac rhythm monitoring devices (CardioSTAT, Icentia; or SEEQ, Medtronic) or, alternatively, to receive usual postoperative care

The patients, considered to be at high risk for stroke with no history of AF, were followed for the primary end point of cumulative burden of AF or atrial flutter exceeding 6 minutes or documentation of either arrhythmia by 12-lead ECG within 30 days.

Two other studies in the session look at different approaches to AF screening, one using a handheld ECG monitor in the primary care setting and the other wearable monitors in the form of a patch or wristband. The VITAL-AF presentation is titled “Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults at Primary Care Visits Using Single Lead Electrocardiograms.” The other presentation, on the study mSToPS, is called “Three-Year Clinical Outcomes in a Nationwide, Randomized, Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Screening — Mhealth Screening to Prevent Strokes.”
 

Late-Breaking Science 7. Monday, November 16, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM CST

In the randomized FIDELIO-DKD trial with more than 5700 patients with type 2 diabetes and associated kidney disease, those assigned to the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Bayer) showed an 18% drop in risk for adverse renal events, including death from renal causes (P = .001), over a median of 2.6 years. That primary outcome was previously presented in detail at a nephrology meeting and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October.

Patients on the MRA showed a similar reduction in a composite CV-event end point, it was also reported at that time. A follow-up presentation at the AHA sessions promises to dive deeper into the trial’s CV outcomes.

In the RAPID-CTCA study, slated next for the session, 1749 patients with suspected or confirmed intermediate-risk ACS were randomly assigned to undergo computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) for guiding treatment decisions or a standard-of-care strategy. It followed patients for the primary end point of death or nonfatal MI over 1 year.

Rilonacept (Arcalyst, Kiniksa/Regeneron) is an interleukin-1α and -1β inhibitor used in several autoinflammatory diseases that went unsuccessfully before regulators for the treatment of gout. The RHAPSODY trial has now explored its use against recurrent pericarditis in a randomized trial that entered 86 patients 12 years and older who had previously experienced at least three episodes.

In top-line results reported to investors in June, patients assigned to receive the drug instead of placebo in weekly injections showed a 96% drop in risk for pericarditis recurrence and “no or minimal pain” on more than 90% of days in the trial. A full presentation is expected during this LBS session.

Also on the schedule is the THALES study, which led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expand indications for ticagrelor to include stroke prevention in patients with a history of acute ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA based on the trial’s primary results published in July.

In THALES, more than 11,000 patients with mild to moderate acute noncardiogenic ischemic stroke or TIA were randomly assigned within 24 hours to start on daily aspirin with or without ticagrelor given as a 180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily for 30 days.

At the end of a month, it was reported, those on dual antiplatelet therapy showed a 17% risk reduction (P = .02) for the primary end point of stroke or death, at the cost of a slight but significant increase in “severe” bleeding (0.5% vs 0.1%; P = .001).

The session is to conclude with two related studies that fell victim in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which explored sotagliflozin (Zynquista, Sanofi/Lexicon), an inhibitor of both sodium-glucose cotransporters 1 and 2 (SGLT1 and SGLT2, respectively) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

SOLOIST-WHF had entered 1222 such patients hospitalized with urgent or worsening HF at 466 centers and randomly assigned them to receive sotagliflozin or placebo; they were followed for the composite of CV death or HF events. SCORED reached an enrollment of 10,584 patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease at 754 hospitals, following them for the same primary end point.

Lexicon announced in March that the trials would be “closed out early” because of the unavailability of funding “together with uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic on the trials.” The LBS presentation is expected to include analyses of available data; SOLOIST-WHF launched in summer 2018 and SCORED began in November 2017.
 

Late-Breaking Science 8. Tuesday, November 17, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

Most of this LBS session is devoted to the AHA COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease registry, which is looking at the hospital journey, clinical course, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infections at centers participating in the organization’s Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) quality-improvement program. As of September, the registry included data from more than 15,000 patients.

Scheduled presentations include a summary of the registry’s design and initial results; an analysis of racial and ethnic variation in therapy and clinical outcomes; an exploration of how body mass index influenced outcomes, including death, use of mechanical ventilation, and cardiovascular end points, in patients with COVID-19; and a deep dive into the relation between CV disease and clinical outcomes in the cohort.

The last of this LBS block’s five talks will cover the randomized Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure (INVESTED) trial, which compared vaccination with high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine or a standard-dose quadrivalent vaccine in 5388 adults with a history of hospitalization for either MI or HF. Patients were required to have at least one other CV risk factor, such as older age, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, or diabetes.

INVESTED tracked the patients at 190 centers across an initial pilot flu season and three subsequent flu seasons for the primary end point of death from any cause or cardiopulmonary hospitalization.

The trial is one of at least three that have been looking at the effect of flu vaccination on cardiovascular outcomes; results from the other two — IAMI, with more than 2500 participants, and RCT-IVVE, with an enrollment of 4871 — are planned for presentation in 2021, theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology recently reported.
 

Late-Breaking Science 9. Tuesday, November 17, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

The conference’s concluding LBS session features three studies that relied on technologic strategies for modifying patient compliance and other care behaviors and one that used human-centered design principles to develop a group-care model aimed improving the management of diabetes, hypertension, and other noncommunicable diseases in economically disadvantaged regions of Kenya.

The EPIC-HF trial tested a strategy for improving HFrEF medication-plan engagement by use of a video and documents delivered to patients several times by email or text prior to their follow-up clinic appointments. The strategy was compared with usual care for its effect on HF-medication optimization over 1 month and 1 year in a total of 306 patients.

Following EPIC-HF on the schedule is the MYROAD trial, looking at the efficacy of discharge instructions provided to patients with acute HF as an audio recording that they and their physicians could replay on demand, the idea being to increase adherence to the instructions. The trial’s 1073 patients were assigned to the novel strategy or usual care and followed for HF rehospitalization within 30 days.

MYROAD is to be followed by a presentation entitled “Digital Care Transformation: One-Year Report of >5,000 Patients Enrolled in a Remote Algorithm-Based CV Risk Management Program to Achieve Optimal Lipid and Hypertension Control.”

Rounding out the LBS session: the Bridging Income Generation With Group Integrated Care (BIGPIC) program, a pilot study that developed and executed “a healthcare delivery model targeting health behaviors, medication adherence, and financial barriers to accessing healthcare” in four rural counties in Kenya.

The model features locally developed plans, tailored for regional needs, that are said to “combine the benefits of microfinance with the peer support available through group medical care to enhance management of hypertension and diabetes.” The microfinance component is aimed at improving household economies to alleviate the financial burden of care and clinic attendance, and for the health effects of improved quality of life.

The study randomized 2890 adults with diabetes or prediabetes to one of four groups: usual care plus microfinance group support, group medical visits only or combined with microfinance group support, or usual care only. They were followed for changes in systolic blood pressure and CV-risk score over 12 months.

Lloyd-Jones and Fauci declared no conflicts.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiologists are already old hands at virtual meetings this year and are fast becoming experts on Zoom and other teleconferencing platforms, if not on how to unmute their microphones.

With expectations perhaps elevated and the new communications genre’s novelty on the wane, the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020 has a chance to both innovate with familiar formats and captivate with the field’s latest research findings.

Although the virtual AHA 2020 might not satisfy longings for face-to-face networking, shop talk, or kidding around over coffee, it will feature many traditional elements of the live conferences adapted for ear buds and small screens. They include late-breaking science (LBS) presentations and panel discussions, poster and live oral abstract presentations, meet-the-trialist talks, fireside-chat discussion forums, early career events, and satellite symposia.

The event may well hold lessons for future iterations of AHA Scientific Sessions in the postpandemic world, which some foresee as, potentially, an amalgam of the time-honored live format and a robust, complementary online presence.

Late-Breaking Science 1. Friday, November 13, 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM CST

The LBS sessions launch with the GALACTIC-HF trial, which — the world recently learned — may expand the burgeoning list of meds shown to improve clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In cursory top-line results announced last month, those in the trial of more than 8000 patients who were randomly assigned to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (Amgen/Cytokinetics/Servier) showed a slight but significant benefit for the primary end point of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF events. The hazard ratio (HR), compared with standard care, was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86 - 0.99; P = .025), noted a press release from Amgen.

Among the announcement’s few other details was a short take on safety outcomes: no difference in risk for “adverse events, including major ischemic cardiac events,” between the active and control groups. The presentation is sure to provide further insights and caveats, if any, along with other information crucial to the study’s interpretation.

Next on the schedule is the closely watched AFFIRM-AHF, billed as the first major outcomes trial of iron administration to iron-deficient patients with acute HF. It randomly assigned more than 1000 such patients to receive IV ferric carboxymaltose or a placebo. The first dose was given in-hospital and subsequent doses at home for 24 weeks or until patients were no longer iron deficient. They were followed to 1 year for the primary end point of recurrent HF hospitalizations or CV death.

The session wraps with the VITAL Rhythm trial, a substudy of the doubly randomized VITAL trial that explored the effects of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on CV and cancer risk in more than 25,000 patients in the community. The substudy explored the effects of two active therapies, a preparation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (Omacor, Reliant Pharmaceuticals) or vitamin D3 supplements, on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) as the primary end point; it also looked at risk for sudden death.
 

Late-Breaking Science 2. Friday, November 13, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

Dominating the session in two presentations, the (TIPS)-3 trial explored a polypill primary-prevention strategy and daily aspirin with vitamin D supplementation in three separate placebo-controlled comparisons in more than 5700 “intermediate risk” participants 55 years and older, mostly in developing countries.

The daily polypill in this trial is a combination of hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, atenolol 100 mg, ramipril 10 mg, and simvastatin 40 mg; aspirin was given at 75 mg daily and vitamin D at 60,000 IU monthly.

The participants are followed for a primary end point composed of major CV disease, HF, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ischemia-driven revascularization for the polypill comparison; CV events or cancer for the aspirin comparison; and fracture risk for the vitamin D component of the trial.

In the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study (SCAPIS), presented third in the session, a random sample of adults from throughout Sweden, projected at about 30,000, underwent a 2-day evaluation for metabolic risk factors plus ultrasound and coronary and lung CT scans. The group has been followed for risks for myocardial infarction (MI), sudden death, and other cardiac diseases; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other lung disorders.
 

Late-Breaking Science 3. Saturday, November 14, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

The field may learn more mechanistically about MI associated with nonobstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA) than ever before from the Heart Attack Research Program-Imaging Study (HARP). The observational study is enrolling a projected 450 patients with suspected MI and ischemic symptoms who were referred for cardiac catheterization.

Their evaluation includes coronary optical coherence tomographic (OCT) scanning and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for evidence of coronary plaque disruption as the primary end point. The patients are to be followed for 10 years for a composite of death, unstable angina, stroke, recurrent MI, diagnostic or interventional catheterization, and cardiac hospitalization.

The major direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) comparisons with warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) didn’t include many patients with prosthetic valve implants. In contrast, the RIVER trial enrolled 1005 adults with either persistent or paroxysmal AF and bioprosthetic mitral valves and assigned them to rivaroxaban 20 mg or the vitamin K antagonist.

The presentation will include the noninferiority primary outcome of major clinical events, which is stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), major bleeding, death from any cause, valve thrombosis, other systemic embolism, or HF hospitalization over 12 months.

This session also includes ALPHEUS, a trial pitting ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) against mainstay clopidogrel in a setting that is mostly uncharted for such comparisons, elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

About 1900 patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to a month of treatment with either agent on top of continuous aspirin. The primary end point is PCI-related MI or myocardial injury within 48 hours of the procedure.
 

Late-Breaking Science 4. Sunday, November 15, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

The Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo (SAMSON) trial may be one of the AHA 2020 frontrunners for early buzz and anticipation. So it’s with some irony that it’s also among the smallest of the LBS studies, at 60 patients, which was nonetheless considered sufficient due to its unusual design.

SAMSON is the latest and perhaps most rigorous attempt to clarify whether symptoms, especially muscle pain or discomfort, attributed to statins by many patients are pharmacologic in origin or, rather, a nocebo effect from negative expectations about statin side effects.

The study patients, all of whom had previously halted statins because of side effects, were assigned to follow three separate regimens, each for month, in a randomized order; they did that four times, for a total of 12 months. The regimens consisted of atorvastatin 20 mg daily, a placebo, or neither.

Patients kept daily logs of any perceived side effects. Parity between side effects experienced on the statin and the placebo would point to a nocebo effect, whereas a significant excess on atorvastatin would suggest they are direct drug effects.

The session also features two randomized trials each on a unique omega-3 fatty acid preparation for either secondary prevention or high-risk primary prevention, in both cases compared with a corn-oil placebo.

The Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Elderly Patients with Myocardial Infarction (OMEMI) trial randomly assigned more than 1000 elderly post-MI patients to take Pikasol (Orkla Care) at 1.8 g EPA and DHA per day or the placebo. It looked for all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularization, or hospitalization for new or worsened HF over 24 months.

The STRENGTH trial, with a planned enrollment of about 13,000 high-vascular-risk patients, looked primarily at the effect of daily treatment with Epanova (AstraZeneca), which also contains DHA and EPA, on the composite of CV death, nonfatal MI or stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina. The trial was halted early for low likelihood of benefit, AstraZeneca announced in January of this year.
 

Late-Breaking Science 5. Sunday, November 15, 7:15 PM - 8:30 PM CST

Slated for the session is the primary analysis of the PIONEER 3 trial, conducted in the United States, Europe, and Japan. It compared the BuMA Supreme biodegradable drug-coated stent (SinoMed) with the durable Xience (Abbott Vascular) and Promus (Boston Scientific) drug-eluting stents. The trial followed more than 1600 patients treated for chronic stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for the 1-year composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related MI, and clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.
 

Late-Breaking Science 6. Monday, November 16, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

The EARLY-AF trial enrolled 303 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF suitable for catheter ablation, assigning them to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by cryoablation using the Arctic Front (Medtronic) system or antiarrhythmic drug therapy for rhythm control. The primary end point is time to recurrence of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, as determined by implantable loop recorder. Patients will also be followed for symptoms and arrhythmia burden.

Also in the session, the SEARCH-AF study randomized almost 400 patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were engaged subacutely with one of two commercial portable cardiac rhythm monitoring devices (CardioSTAT, Icentia; or SEEQ, Medtronic) or, alternatively, to receive usual postoperative care

The patients, considered to be at high risk for stroke with no history of AF, were followed for the primary end point of cumulative burden of AF or atrial flutter exceeding 6 minutes or documentation of either arrhythmia by 12-lead ECG within 30 days.

Two other studies in the session look at different approaches to AF screening, one using a handheld ECG monitor in the primary care setting and the other wearable monitors in the form of a patch or wristband. The VITAL-AF presentation is titled “Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults at Primary Care Visits Using Single Lead Electrocardiograms.” The other presentation, on the study mSToPS, is called “Three-Year Clinical Outcomes in a Nationwide, Randomized, Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Screening — Mhealth Screening to Prevent Strokes.”
 

Late-Breaking Science 7. Monday, November 16, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM CST

In the randomized FIDELIO-DKD trial with more than 5700 patients with type 2 diabetes and associated kidney disease, those assigned to the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Bayer) showed an 18% drop in risk for adverse renal events, including death from renal causes (P = .001), over a median of 2.6 years. That primary outcome was previously presented in detail at a nephrology meeting and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October.

Patients on the MRA showed a similar reduction in a composite CV-event end point, it was also reported at that time. A follow-up presentation at the AHA sessions promises to dive deeper into the trial’s CV outcomes.

In the RAPID-CTCA study, slated next for the session, 1749 patients with suspected or confirmed intermediate-risk ACS were randomly assigned to undergo computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) for guiding treatment decisions or a standard-of-care strategy. It followed patients for the primary end point of death or nonfatal MI over 1 year.

Rilonacept (Arcalyst, Kiniksa/Regeneron) is an interleukin-1α and -1β inhibitor used in several autoinflammatory diseases that went unsuccessfully before regulators for the treatment of gout. The RHAPSODY trial has now explored its use against recurrent pericarditis in a randomized trial that entered 86 patients 12 years and older who had previously experienced at least three episodes.

In top-line results reported to investors in June, patients assigned to receive the drug instead of placebo in weekly injections showed a 96% drop in risk for pericarditis recurrence and “no or minimal pain” on more than 90% of days in the trial. A full presentation is expected during this LBS session.

Also on the schedule is the THALES study, which led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expand indications for ticagrelor to include stroke prevention in patients with a history of acute ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA based on the trial’s primary results published in July.

In THALES, more than 11,000 patients with mild to moderate acute noncardiogenic ischemic stroke or TIA were randomly assigned within 24 hours to start on daily aspirin with or without ticagrelor given as a 180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily for 30 days.

At the end of a month, it was reported, those on dual antiplatelet therapy showed a 17% risk reduction (P = .02) for the primary end point of stroke or death, at the cost of a slight but significant increase in “severe” bleeding (0.5% vs 0.1%; P = .001).

The session is to conclude with two related studies that fell victim in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which explored sotagliflozin (Zynquista, Sanofi/Lexicon), an inhibitor of both sodium-glucose cotransporters 1 and 2 (SGLT1 and SGLT2, respectively) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

SOLOIST-WHF had entered 1222 such patients hospitalized with urgent or worsening HF at 466 centers and randomly assigned them to receive sotagliflozin or placebo; they were followed for the composite of CV death or HF events. SCORED reached an enrollment of 10,584 patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease at 754 hospitals, following them for the same primary end point.

Lexicon announced in March that the trials would be “closed out early” because of the unavailability of funding “together with uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic on the trials.” The LBS presentation is expected to include analyses of available data; SOLOIST-WHF launched in summer 2018 and SCORED began in November 2017.
 

Late-Breaking Science 8. Tuesday, November 17, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

Most of this LBS session is devoted to the AHA COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease registry, which is looking at the hospital journey, clinical course, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infections at centers participating in the organization’s Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) quality-improvement program. As of September, the registry included data from more than 15,000 patients.

Scheduled presentations include a summary of the registry’s design and initial results; an analysis of racial and ethnic variation in therapy and clinical outcomes; an exploration of how body mass index influenced outcomes, including death, use of mechanical ventilation, and cardiovascular end points, in patients with COVID-19; and a deep dive into the relation between CV disease and clinical outcomes in the cohort.

The last of this LBS block’s five talks will cover the randomized Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure (INVESTED) trial, which compared vaccination with high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine or a standard-dose quadrivalent vaccine in 5388 adults with a history of hospitalization for either MI or HF. Patients were required to have at least one other CV risk factor, such as older age, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, or diabetes.

INVESTED tracked the patients at 190 centers across an initial pilot flu season and three subsequent flu seasons for the primary end point of death from any cause or cardiopulmonary hospitalization.

The trial is one of at least three that have been looking at the effect of flu vaccination on cardiovascular outcomes; results from the other two — IAMI, with more than 2500 participants, and RCT-IVVE, with an enrollment of 4871 — are planned for presentation in 2021, theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology recently reported.
 

Late-Breaking Science 9. Tuesday, November 17, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

The conference’s concluding LBS session features three studies that relied on technologic strategies for modifying patient compliance and other care behaviors and one that used human-centered design principles to develop a group-care model aimed improving the management of diabetes, hypertension, and other noncommunicable diseases in economically disadvantaged regions of Kenya.

The EPIC-HF trial tested a strategy for improving HFrEF medication-plan engagement by use of a video and documents delivered to patients several times by email or text prior to their follow-up clinic appointments. The strategy was compared with usual care for its effect on HF-medication optimization over 1 month and 1 year in a total of 306 patients.

Following EPIC-HF on the schedule is the MYROAD trial, looking at the efficacy of discharge instructions provided to patients with acute HF as an audio recording that they and their physicians could replay on demand, the idea being to increase adherence to the instructions. The trial’s 1073 patients were assigned to the novel strategy or usual care and followed for HF rehospitalization within 30 days.

MYROAD is to be followed by a presentation entitled “Digital Care Transformation: One-Year Report of >5,000 Patients Enrolled in a Remote Algorithm-Based CV Risk Management Program to Achieve Optimal Lipid and Hypertension Control.”

Rounding out the LBS session: the Bridging Income Generation With Group Integrated Care (BIGPIC) program, a pilot study that developed and executed “a healthcare delivery model targeting health behaviors, medication adherence, and financial barriers to accessing healthcare” in four rural counties in Kenya.

The model features locally developed plans, tailored for regional needs, that are said to “combine the benefits of microfinance with the peer support available through group medical care to enhance management of hypertension and diabetes.” The microfinance component is aimed at improving household economies to alleviate the financial burden of care and clinic attendance, and for the health effects of improved quality of life.

The study randomized 2890 adults with diabetes or prediabetes to one of four groups: usual care plus microfinance group support, group medical visits only or combined with microfinance group support, or usual care only. They were followed for changes in systolic blood pressure and CV-risk score over 12 months.

Lloyd-Jones and Fauci declared no conflicts.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiologists are already old hands at virtual meetings this year and are fast becoming experts on Zoom and other teleconferencing platforms, if not on how to unmute their microphones.

With expectations perhaps elevated and the new communications genre’s novelty on the wane, the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020 has a chance to both innovate with familiar formats and captivate with the field’s latest research findings.

Although the virtual AHA 2020 might not satisfy longings for face-to-face networking, shop talk, or kidding around over coffee, it will feature many traditional elements of the live conferences adapted for ear buds and small screens. They include late-breaking science (LBS) presentations and panel discussions, poster and live oral abstract presentations, meet-the-trialist talks, fireside-chat discussion forums, early career events, and satellite symposia.

The event may well hold lessons for future iterations of AHA Scientific Sessions in the postpandemic world, which some foresee as, potentially, an amalgam of the time-honored live format and a robust, complementary online presence.

Late-Breaking Science 1. Friday, November 13, 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM CST

The LBS sessions launch with the GALACTIC-HF trial, which — the world recently learned — may expand the burgeoning list of meds shown to improve clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In cursory top-line results announced last month, those in the trial of more than 8000 patients who were randomly assigned to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (Amgen/Cytokinetics/Servier) showed a slight but significant benefit for the primary end point of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF events. The hazard ratio (HR), compared with standard care, was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86 - 0.99; P = .025), noted a press release from Amgen.

Among the announcement’s few other details was a short take on safety outcomes: no difference in risk for “adverse events, including major ischemic cardiac events,” between the active and control groups. The presentation is sure to provide further insights and caveats, if any, along with other information crucial to the study’s interpretation.

Next on the schedule is the closely watched AFFIRM-AHF, billed as the first major outcomes trial of iron administration to iron-deficient patients with acute HF. It randomly assigned more than 1000 such patients to receive IV ferric carboxymaltose or a placebo. The first dose was given in-hospital and subsequent doses at home for 24 weeks or until patients were no longer iron deficient. They were followed to 1 year for the primary end point of recurrent HF hospitalizations or CV death.

The session wraps with the VITAL Rhythm trial, a substudy of the doubly randomized VITAL trial that explored the effects of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on CV and cancer risk in more than 25,000 patients in the community. The substudy explored the effects of two active therapies, a preparation of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (Omacor, Reliant Pharmaceuticals) or vitamin D3 supplements, on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) as the primary end point; it also looked at risk for sudden death.
 

Late-Breaking Science 2. Friday, November 13, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

Dominating the session in two presentations, the (TIPS)-3 trial explored a polypill primary-prevention strategy and daily aspirin with vitamin D supplementation in three separate placebo-controlled comparisons in more than 5700 “intermediate risk” participants 55 years and older, mostly in developing countries.

The daily polypill in this trial is a combination of hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, atenolol 100 mg, ramipril 10 mg, and simvastatin 40 mg; aspirin was given at 75 mg daily and vitamin D at 60,000 IU monthly.

The participants are followed for a primary end point composed of major CV disease, HF, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ischemia-driven revascularization for the polypill comparison; CV events or cancer for the aspirin comparison; and fracture risk for the vitamin D component of the trial.

In the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study (SCAPIS), presented third in the session, a random sample of adults from throughout Sweden, projected at about 30,000, underwent a 2-day evaluation for metabolic risk factors plus ultrasound and coronary and lung CT scans. The group has been followed for risks for myocardial infarction (MI), sudden death, and other cardiac diseases; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other lung disorders.
 

Late-Breaking Science 3. Saturday, November 14, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

The field may learn more mechanistically about MI associated with nonobstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA) than ever before from the Heart Attack Research Program-Imaging Study (HARP). The observational study is enrolling a projected 450 patients with suspected MI and ischemic symptoms who were referred for cardiac catheterization.

Their evaluation includes coronary optical coherence tomographic (OCT) scanning and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for evidence of coronary plaque disruption as the primary end point. The patients are to be followed for 10 years for a composite of death, unstable angina, stroke, recurrent MI, diagnostic or interventional catheterization, and cardiac hospitalization.

The major direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) comparisons with warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) didn’t include many patients with prosthetic valve implants. In contrast, the RIVER trial enrolled 1005 adults with either persistent or paroxysmal AF and bioprosthetic mitral valves and assigned them to rivaroxaban 20 mg or the vitamin K antagonist.

The presentation will include the noninferiority primary outcome of major clinical events, which is stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), major bleeding, death from any cause, valve thrombosis, other systemic embolism, or HF hospitalization over 12 months.

This session also includes ALPHEUS, a trial pitting ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) against mainstay clopidogrel in a setting that is mostly uncharted for such comparisons, elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

About 1900 patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to a month of treatment with either agent on top of continuous aspirin. The primary end point is PCI-related MI or myocardial injury within 48 hours of the procedure.
 

Late-Breaking Science 4. Sunday, November 15, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

The Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo (SAMSON) trial may be one of the AHA 2020 frontrunners for early buzz and anticipation. So it’s with some irony that it’s also among the smallest of the LBS studies, at 60 patients, which was nonetheless considered sufficient due to its unusual design.

SAMSON is the latest and perhaps most rigorous attempt to clarify whether symptoms, especially muscle pain or discomfort, attributed to statins by many patients are pharmacologic in origin or, rather, a nocebo effect from negative expectations about statin side effects.

The study patients, all of whom had previously halted statins because of side effects, were assigned to follow three separate regimens, each for month, in a randomized order; they did that four times, for a total of 12 months. The regimens consisted of atorvastatin 20 mg daily, a placebo, or neither.

Patients kept daily logs of any perceived side effects. Parity between side effects experienced on the statin and the placebo would point to a nocebo effect, whereas a significant excess on atorvastatin would suggest they are direct drug effects.

The session also features two randomized trials each on a unique omega-3 fatty acid preparation for either secondary prevention or high-risk primary prevention, in both cases compared with a corn-oil placebo.

The Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Elderly Patients with Myocardial Infarction (OMEMI) trial randomly assigned more than 1000 elderly post-MI patients to take Pikasol (Orkla Care) at 1.8 g EPA and DHA per day or the placebo. It looked for all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularization, or hospitalization for new or worsened HF over 24 months.

The STRENGTH trial, with a planned enrollment of about 13,000 high-vascular-risk patients, looked primarily at the effect of daily treatment with Epanova (AstraZeneca), which also contains DHA and EPA, on the composite of CV death, nonfatal MI or stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina. The trial was halted early for low likelihood of benefit, AstraZeneca announced in January of this year.
 

Late-Breaking Science 5. Sunday, November 15, 7:15 PM - 8:30 PM CST

Slated for the session is the primary analysis of the PIONEER 3 trial, conducted in the United States, Europe, and Japan. It compared the BuMA Supreme biodegradable drug-coated stent (SinoMed) with the durable Xience (Abbott Vascular) and Promus (Boston Scientific) drug-eluting stents. The trial followed more than 1600 patients treated for chronic stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for the 1-year composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related MI, and clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.
 

Late-Breaking Science 6. Monday, November 16, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

The EARLY-AF trial enrolled 303 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF suitable for catheter ablation, assigning them to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by cryoablation using the Arctic Front (Medtronic) system or antiarrhythmic drug therapy for rhythm control. The primary end point is time to recurrence of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, as determined by implantable loop recorder. Patients will also be followed for symptoms and arrhythmia burden.

Also in the session, the SEARCH-AF study randomized almost 400 patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were engaged subacutely with one of two commercial portable cardiac rhythm monitoring devices (CardioSTAT, Icentia; or SEEQ, Medtronic) or, alternatively, to receive usual postoperative care

The patients, considered to be at high risk for stroke with no history of AF, were followed for the primary end point of cumulative burden of AF or atrial flutter exceeding 6 minutes or documentation of either arrhythmia by 12-lead ECG within 30 days.

Two other studies in the session look at different approaches to AF screening, one using a handheld ECG monitor in the primary care setting and the other wearable monitors in the form of a patch or wristband. The VITAL-AF presentation is titled “Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults at Primary Care Visits Using Single Lead Electrocardiograms.” The other presentation, on the study mSToPS, is called “Three-Year Clinical Outcomes in a Nationwide, Randomized, Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Screening — Mhealth Screening to Prevent Strokes.”
 

Late-Breaking Science 7. Monday, November 16, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM CST

In the randomized FIDELIO-DKD trial with more than 5700 patients with type 2 diabetes and associated kidney disease, those assigned to the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Bayer) showed an 18% drop in risk for adverse renal events, including death from renal causes (P = .001), over a median of 2.6 years. That primary outcome was previously presented in detail at a nephrology meeting and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October.

Patients on the MRA showed a similar reduction in a composite CV-event end point, it was also reported at that time. A follow-up presentation at the AHA sessions promises to dive deeper into the trial’s CV outcomes.

In the RAPID-CTCA study, slated next for the session, 1749 patients with suspected or confirmed intermediate-risk ACS were randomly assigned to undergo computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) for guiding treatment decisions or a standard-of-care strategy. It followed patients for the primary end point of death or nonfatal MI over 1 year.

Rilonacept (Arcalyst, Kiniksa/Regeneron) is an interleukin-1α and -1β inhibitor used in several autoinflammatory diseases that went unsuccessfully before regulators for the treatment of gout. The RHAPSODY trial has now explored its use against recurrent pericarditis in a randomized trial that entered 86 patients 12 years and older who had previously experienced at least three episodes.

In top-line results reported to investors in June, patients assigned to receive the drug instead of placebo in weekly injections showed a 96% drop in risk for pericarditis recurrence and “no or minimal pain” on more than 90% of days in the trial. A full presentation is expected during this LBS session.

Also on the schedule is the THALES study, which led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expand indications for ticagrelor to include stroke prevention in patients with a history of acute ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA based on the trial’s primary results published in July.

In THALES, more than 11,000 patients with mild to moderate acute noncardiogenic ischemic stroke or TIA were randomly assigned within 24 hours to start on daily aspirin with or without ticagrelor given as a 180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily for 30 days.

At the end of a month, it was reported, those on dual antiplatelet therapy showed a 17% risk reduction (P = .02) for the primary end point of stroke or death, at the cost of a slight but significant increase in “severe” bleeding (0.5% vs 0.1%; P = .001).

The session is to conclude with two related studies that fell victim in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which explored sotagliflozin (Zynquista, Sanofi/Lexicon), an inhibitor of both sodium-glucose cotransporters 1 and 2 (SGLT1 and SGLT2, respectively) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

SOLOIST-WHF had entered 1222 such patients hospitalized with urgent or worsening HF at 466 centers and randomly assigned them to receive sotagliflozin or placebo; they were followed for the composite of CV death or HF events. SCORED reached an enrollment of 10,584 patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease at 754 hospitals, following them for the same primary end point.

Lexicon announced in March that the trials would be “closed out early” because of the unavailability of funding “together with uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic on the trials.” The LBS presentation is expected to include analyses of available data; SOLOIST-WHF launched in summer 2018 and SCORED began in November 2017.
 

Late-Breaking Science 8. Tuesday, November 17, 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM CST

Most of this LBS session is devoted to the AHA COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease registry, which is looking at the hospital journey, clinical course, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infections at centers participating in the organization’s Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) quality-improvement program. As of September, the registry included data from more than 15,000 patients.

Scheduled presentations include a summary of the registry’s design and initial results; an analysis of racial and ethnic variation in therapy and clinical outcomes; an exploration of how body mass index influenced outcomes, including death, use of mechanical ventilation, and cardiovascular end points, in patients with COVID-19; and a deep dive into the relation between CV disease and clinical outcomes in the cohort.

The last of this LBS block’s five talks will cover the randomized Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure (INVESTED) trial, which compared vaccination with high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine or a standard-dose quadrivalent vaccine in 5388 adults with a history of hospitalization for either MI or HF. Patients were required to have at least one other CV risk factor, such as older age, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, or diabetes.

INVESTED tracked the patients at 190 centers across an initial pilot flu season and three subsequent flu seasons for the primary end point of death from any cause or cardiopulmonary hospitalization.

The trial is one of at least three that have been looking at the effect of flu vaccination on cardiovascular outcomes; results from the other two — IAMI, with more than 2500 participants, and RCT-IVVE, with an enrollment of 4871 — are planned for presentation in 2021, theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology recently reported.
 

Late-Breaking Science 9. Tuesday, November 17, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM CST

The conference’s concluding LBS session features three studies that relied on technologic strategies for modifying patient compliance and other care behaviors and one that used human-centered design principles to develop a group-care model aimed improving the management of diabetes, hypertension, and other noncommunicable diseases in economically disadvantaged regions of Kenya.

The EPIC-HF trial tested a strategy for improving HFrEF medication-plan engagement by use of a video and documents delivered to patients several times by email or text prior to their follow-up clinic appointments. The strategy was compared with usual care for its effect on HF-medication optimization over 1 month and 1 year in a total of 306 patients.

Following EPIC-HF on the schedule is the MYROAD trial, looking at the efficacy of discharge instructions provided to patients with acute HF as an audio recording that they and their physicians could replay on demand, the idea being to increase adherence to the instructions. The trial’s 1073 patients were assigned to the novel strategy or usual care and followed for HF rehospitalization within 30 days.

MYROAD is to be followed by a presentation entitled “Digital Care Transformation: One-Year Report of >5,000 Patients Enrolled in a Remote Algorithm-Based CV Risk Management Program to Achieve Optimal Lipid and Hypertension Control.”

Rounding out the LBS session: the Bridging Income Generation With Group Integrated Care (BIGPIC) program, a pilot study that developed and executed “a healthcare delivery model targeting health behaviors, medication adherence, and financial barriers to accessing healthcare” in four rural counties in Kenya.

The model features locally developed plans, tailored for regional needs, that are said to “combine the benefits of microfinance with the peer support available through group medical care to enhance management of hypertension and diabetes.” The microfinance component is aimed at improving household economies to alleviate the financial burden of care and clinic attendance, and for the health effects of improved quality of life.

The study randomized 2890 adults with diabetes or prediabetes to one of four groups: usual care plus microfinance group support, group medical visits only or combined with microfinance group support, or usual care only. They were followed for changes in systolic blood pressure and CV-risk score over 12 months.

Lloyd-Jones and Fauci declared no conflicts.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor people with chronic illness have greater difficulty managing their disease than do their better-off counterparts, and a new study confirms this reality for patients with cystic fibrosis.

Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) who have low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to have poor adherence to treatment and also experience depression and anxiety symptoms, according to a new cross-sectional study. The data were drawn from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Success with Therapies Research Consortium.

“Assessing the special challenges that individuals with lower SES face, including financial barriers, is essential to understand how we can address the unique combinations of adherence barriers. In other chronic disorders, financial barriers or lower socioeconomic status is associated with nonadherence, but this relationship has not been well established in cystic fibrosis,” said Kimberly Dickinson, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, during her presentation of the results at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

“I’ve always thought that my patients in the poorer population were doing worse, and I think this demonstrates that that’s true,” said Robert Giusti, MD, in an interview. Dr. Giusti is a clinical professor of pediatrics at the New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center in New York. He was not involved in the study.

“These are very pertinent issues, especially if you think about the pandemic, and some of the issues related to mental health. It just highlights the importance of socioeconomic status and screening for some of the known risk factors so that we can develop interventions or programs to provide equitable care to all of our cystic fibrosis patients,” said Ryan Perkins, MD, who moderated the session where the study was presented. He is a pediatric and adult pulmonary fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston.

The researchers looked retrospectively at 1 year’s worth of pharmacy refill receipts and number of times prescriptions were refilled versus the number of times prescribed, then calculated medicinal possession ratios. This was cross-referenced with annual household income and insurance status of patients with CF at 12 pediatric and 9 adult CF care centers, for a total of 376 patients (128 pediatric and 248 adult).

Poor people with chronic illness have greater difficulty managing their disease than do their better-off counterparts, and a new study confirms this reality for patients with cystic fibrosis.

Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) who have low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to have poor adherence to treatment and also experience depression and anxiety symptoms, according to a new cross-sectional study. The data were drawn from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Success with Therapies Research Consortium.

“Assessing the special challenges that individuals with lower SES face, including financial barriers, is essential to understand how we can address the unique combinations of adherence barriers. In other chronic disorders, financial barriers or lower socioeconomic status is associated with nonadherence, but this relationship has not been well established in cystic fibrosis,” said Kimberly Dickinson, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, during her presentation of the results at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

“I’ve always thought that my patients in the poorer population were doing worse, and I think this demonstrates that that’s true,” said Robert Giusti, MD, in an interview. Dr. Giusti is a clinical professor of pediatrics at the New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center in New York. He was not involved in the study.

“These are very pertinent issues, especially if you think about the pandemic, and some of the issues related to mental health. It just highlights the importance of socioeconomic status and screening for some of the known risk factors so that we can develop interventions or programs to provide equitable care to all of our cystic fibrosis patients,” said Ryan Perkins, MD, who moderated the session where the study was presented. He is a pediatric and adult pulmonary fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston.

The researchers looked retrospectively at 1 year’s worth of pharmacy refill receipts and number of times prescriptions were refilled versus the number of times prescribed, then calculated medicinal possession ratios. This was cross-referenced with annual household income and insurance status of patients with CF at 12 pediatric and 9 adult CF care centers, for a total of 376 patients (128 pediatric and 248 adult).

Poor people with chronic illness have greater difficulty managing their disease than do their better-off counterparts, and a new study confirms this reality for patients with cystic fibrosis.

Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) who have low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to have poor adherence to treatment and also experience depression and anxiety symptoms, according to a new cross-sectional study. The data were drawn from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Success with Therapies Research Consortium.

“Assessing the special challenges that individuals with lower SES face, including financial barriers, is essential to understand how we can address the unique combinations of adherence barriers. In other chronic disorders, financial barriers or lower socioeconomic status is associated with nonadherence, but this relationship has not been well established in cystic fibrosis,” said Kimberly Dickinson, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, during her presentation of the results at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

“I’ve always thought that my patients in the poorer population were doing worse, and I think this demonstrates that that’s true,” said Robert Giusti, MD, in an interview. Dr. Giusti is a clinical professor of pediatrics at the New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center in New York. He was not involved in the study.

“These are very pertinent issues, especially if you think about the pandemic, and some of the issues related to mental health. It just highlights the importance of socioeconomic status and screening for some of the known risk factors so that we can develop interventions or programs to provide equitable care to all of our cystic fibrosis patients,” said Ryan Perkins, MD, who moderated the session where the study was presented. He is a pediatric and adult pulmonary fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston.

The researchers looked retrospectively at 1 year’s worth of pharmacy refill receipts and number of times prescriptions were refilled versus the number of times prescribed, then calculated medicinal possession ratios. This was cross-referenced with annual household income and insurance status of patients with CF at 12 pediatric and 9 adult CF care centers, for a total of 376 patients (128 pediatric and 248 adult).