MDedge ObGyn

More than one in eight women who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction for breast cancer treatment or prophylaxis become persistent users of controlled substances thereafter, according to a retrospective cohort study reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

After their surgery, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients become new persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic–naive patients become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotics. Risk factors for persistent substance use included younger age, a breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy.

“As the opioid epidemic in the United States continues, the rate of opioid dependence in the cancer population continues to increase as well,” study investigator Jacob Cogan, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, said during a press conference.

“The perioperative period is one of high risk for cancer patients, with up to 10% becoming new persistent opioid users after cancer-related surgery. The rates surrounding mastectomy and reconstruction, however, are unknown. Another class of controlled substances worth our attention are the sedative-hypnotics. Despite the high rates of psychiatric disorders in the cancer population, there is little research into the rates of persistent sedative-hypnotic use in these patients.”

With this in mind, Dr. Cogan and colleagues analyzed MarketScan health care claims data for patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction (whether therapeutic or prophylactic) between 2008 and 2017.

The researchers then identified prescription claims for opioids and sedative-hypnotics during three periods:

• Preoperative period – 365 days to 31 days before surgery.
• Perioperative period – 31 days before to 90 days after surgery.
• Postoperative period – 90 days to 365 days after surgery.

‘Striking’ results

Analyses were based on 25,270 women who were not prior users of opioids and 27,651 women who were not prior users of sedative-hypnotics.

Women were considered new persistent substance users if they had no use in the preoperative period but filled at least one prescription in the perioperative period and at least two in the postoperative period.

Overall, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients became persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic-naive patients became persistent sedative-hypnotic users after their mastectomy and reconstruction.

Proportions of substance use were even higher, 17.5% for opioids and 17.0% for sedative-hypnotics, after excluding women who did not receive or fill a perioperative prescription.

In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent opioid users if they had Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.31), had a breast cancer diagnosis vs a prophylactic indication (OR, 1.44), received chemotherapy (OR, 1.33), and were 50-64 years of age (OR, 1.29) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.27), compared with 65 years or older.

Similarly, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent sedative-hypnotic users if they received chemotherapy (OR, 2.24), had Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.85), had a breast cancer diagnosis (OR, 1.79), and were 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.65) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.79).

Finally, patients’ likelihood of new persistent use increased with their number of risk factors. For persistent opioid use, the odds ratio rose from 2.27 in patients with two risk factors to 6.34 in those with five risk factors. For persistent sedative-hypnotic use, the odds ratio rose from 2.55 to 7.71, respectively.

The observed incidences of new persistent substance use in this patient population are “striking,” according to Dr. Cogan. Although the identified risk factors can help providers spot patients who should be monitored more closely, a proactive, systematic approach to postoperative follow-up for all patients is likely needed.

“When you are seeing patients in follow-up, this is something that you might want to explicitly ask about, for example, and not just assume that the postoperative opioids were taken and then disposed of,” Dr. Cogan recommended. “Ask them, ‘Are you still taking opioids, are you still taking your Ambien or whatever medication you were prescribed?’ That’s something to diligently follow up on and make sure the drug is disposed of, or if it somebody is still taking it, refer them for the appropriate services.”

In addition, patients should be encouraged to use over-the-counter medications as much as possible, he advised.
 

Prescribing: It’s complicated

“I wonder if perhaps we should not be giving opioids at all to certain patients. For example, a mastectomy and implant reconstruction, oftentimes, surprisingly, that’s not a terribly painful procedure. But a TRAM [transverse rectus abdominis] flap or abdominal flap, that really is,” commented press conference comoderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

“I’ve been surprised that a lot of my patients get the prescription, but they don’t even use the pills, and I wonder if the prescription is given just so that we’re not bothered at nighttime by somebody calling with pain,” Dr. Osbourne added.

Prescribing opioids for postoperative pain is complicated, Dr. Cogan said, noting that the study did not assess the specific type of reconstruction patients had.

“You don’t want people in pain. Even if they need just one or two pills, it’s still reasonable for them to have it, and we certainly don’t want to imply from our study that people shouldn’t be getting these prescriptions if they need them,” Dr. Cogan elaborated. “But once patients have them, don’t just leave them there in their home because other studies have shown that that’s when people really get addicted to these medications, when they use them later on for other reasons, or they keep using them just because they have them around.”

The risk for persistent use of controlled substances “is something that all physicians need to be aware of for their patients. This is something that we are missing,” maintained press conference comoderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, of UT Health San Antonio.

“It’s easy to just give a prescription instead of arguing with a patient about why you are not going to give them a prescription,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “And ultimately ... pain is subjective. If a patient tells you they are in pain, you are, quote-endquote, a bad physician if you tell them they should not be in pain.”

Courtesy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

“We need to focus on other ways to deal with the pain, like physical therapy, sending patients to physical medicine and rehab physicians who are trained to help with symptoms from the surgery, with range of motion and all that; that can help with pain,” she recommended. “It’s much harder to do that, right, than to send a prescription in for a narcotic? But that easy answer is always the worst answer.”

This study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cogan declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Osborne disclosed relationships with Wolters Kluwer, Lilly, Tolmar, and GeneTex. Dr. Kaklamani disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene, Celldex, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, Genomic Health, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Cogan JC et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-08.

More than one in eight women who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction for breast cancer treatment or prophylaxis become persistent users of controlled substances thereafter, according to a retrospective cohort study reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

After their surgery, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients become new persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic–naive patients become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotics. Risk factors for persistent substance use included younger age, a breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy.

“As the opioid epidemic in the United States continues, the rate of opioid dependence in the cancer population continues to increase as well,” study investigator Jacob Cogan, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, said during a press conference.

“The perioperative period is one of high risk for cancer patients, with up to 10% becoming new persistent opioid users after cancer-related surgery. The rates surrounding mastectomy and reconstruction, however, are unknown. Another class of controlled substances worth our attention are the sedative-hypnotics. Despite the high rates of psychiatric disorders in the cancer population, there is little research into the rates of persistent sedative-hypnotic use in these patients.”

With this in mind, Dr. Cogan and colleagues analyzed MarketScan health care claims data for patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction (whether therapeutic or prophylactic) between 2008 and 2017.

The researchers then identified prescription claims for opioids and sedative-hypnotics during three periods:

• Preoperative period – 365 days to 31 days before surgery.
• Perioperative period – 31 days before to 90 days after surgery.
• Postoperative period – 90 days to 365 days after surgery.

‘Striking’ results

Analyses were based on 25,270 women who were not prior users of opioids and 27,651 women who were not prior users of sedative-hypnotics.

Women were considered new persistent substance users if they had no use in the preoperative period but filled at least one prescription in the perioperative period and at least two in the postoperative period.

Overall, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients became persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic-naive patients became persistent sedative-hypnotic users after their mastectomy and reconstruction.

Proportions of substance use were even higher, 17.5% for opioids and 17.0% for sedative-hypnotics, after excluding women who did not receive or fill a perioperative prescription.

In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent opioid users if they had Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.31), had a breast cancer diagnosis vs a prophylactic indication (OR, 1.44), received chemotherapy (OR, 1.33), and were 50-64 years of age (OR, 1.29) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.27), compared with 65 years or older.

Similarly, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent sedative-hypnotic users if they received chemotherapy (OR, 2.24), had Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.85), had a breast cancer diagnosis (OR, 1.79), and were 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.65) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.79).

Finally, patients’ likelihood of new persistent use increased with their number of risk factors. For persistent opioid use, the odds ratio rose from 2.27 in patients with two risk factors to 6.34 in those with five risk factors. For persistent sedative-hypnotic use, the odds ratio rose from 2.55 to 7.71, respectively.

The observed incidences of new persistent substance use in this patient population are “striking,” according to Dr. Cogan. Although the identified risk factors can help providers spot patients who should be monitored more closely, a proactive, systematic approach to postoperative follow-up for all patients is likely needed.

“When you are seeing patients in follow-up, this is something that you might want to explicitly ask about, for example, and not just assume that the postoperative opioids were taken and then disposed of,” Dr. Cogan recommended. “Ask them, ‘Are you still taking opioids, are you still taking your Ambien or whatever medication you were prescribed?’ That’s something to diligently follow up on and make sure the drug is disposed of, or if it somebody is still taking it, refer them for the appropriate services.”

In addition, patients should be encouraged to use over-the-counter medications as much as possible, he advised.
 

Prescribing: It’s complicated

“I wonder if perhaps we should not be giving opioids at all to certain patients. For example, a mastectomy and implant reconstruction, oftentimes, surprisingly, that’s not a terribly painful procedure. But a TRAM [transverse rectus abdominis] flap or abdominal flap, that really is,” commented press conference comoderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

“I’ve been surprised that a lot of my patients get the prescription, but they don’t even use the pills, and I wonder if the prescription is given just so that we’re not bothered at nighttime by somebody calling with pain,” Dr. Osbourne added.

Prescribing opioids for postoperative pain is complicated, Dr. Cogan said, noting that the study did not assess the specific type of reconstruction patients had.

“You don’t want people in pain. Even if they need just one or two pills, it’s still reasonable for them to have it, and we certainly don’t want to imply from our study that people shouldn’t be getting these prescriptions if they need them,” Dr. Cogan elaborated. “But once patients have them, don’t just leave them there in their home because other studies have shown that that’s when people really get addicted to these medications, when they use them later on for other reasons, or they keep using them just because they have them around.”

The risk for persistent use of controlled substances “is something that all physicians need to be aware of for their patients. This is something that we are missing,” maintained press conference comoderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, of UT Health San Antonio.

“It’s easy to just give a prescription instead of arguing with a patient about why you are not going to give them a prescription,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “And ultimately ... pain is subjective. If a patient tells you they are in pain, you are, quote-endquote, a bad physician if you tell them they should not be in pain.”

Courtesy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

“We need to focus on other ways to deal with the pain, like physical therapy, sending patients to physical medicine and rehab physicians who are trained to help with symptoms from the surgery, with range of motion and all that; that can help with pain,” she recommended. “It’s much harder to do that, right, than to send a prescription in for a narcotic? But that easy answer is always the worst answer.”

This study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cogan declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Osborne disclosed relationships with Wolters Kluwer, Lilly, Tolmar, and GeneTex. Dr. Kaklamani disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene, Celldex, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, Genomic Health, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Cogan JC et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-08.

More than one in eight women who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction for breast cancer treatment or prophylaxis become persistent users of controlled substances thereafter, according to a retrospective cohort study reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

After their surgery, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients become new persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic–naive patients become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotics. Risk factors for persistent substance use included younger age, a breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy.

“As the opioid epidemic in the United States continues, the rate of opioid dependence in the cancer population continues to increase as well,” study investigator Jacob Cogan, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, said during a press conference.

“The perioperative period is one of high risk for cancer patients, with up to 10% becoming new persistent opioid users after cancer-related surgery. The rates surrounding mastectomy and reconstruction, however, are unknown. Another class of controlled substances worth our attention are the sedative-hypnotics. Despite the high rates of psychiatric disorders in the cancer population, there is little research into the rates of persistent sedative-hypnotic use in these patients.”

With this in mind, Dr. Cogan and colleagues analyzed MarketScan health care claims data for patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction (whether therapeutic or prophylactic) between 2008 and 2017.

The researchers then identified prescription claims for opioids and sedative-hypnotics during three periods:

• Preoperative period – 365 days to 31 days before surgery.
• Perioperative period – 31 days before to 90 days after surgery.
• Postoperative period – 90 days to 365 days after surgery.

‘Striking’ results

Analyses were based on 25,270 women who were not prior users of opioids and 27,651 women who were not prior users of sedative-hypnotics.

Women were considered new persistent substance users if they had no use in the preoperative period but filled at least one prescription in the perioperative period and at least two in the postoperative period.

Overall, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients became persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic-naive patients became persistent sedative-hypnotic users after their mastectomy and reconstruction.

Proportions of substance use were even higher, 17.5% for opioids and 17.0% for sedative-hypnotics, after excluding women who did not receive or fill a perioperative prescription.

In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent opioid users if they had Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.31), had a breast cancer diagnosis vs a prophylactic indication (OR, 1.44), received chemotherapy (OR, 1.33), and were 50-64 years of age (OR, 1.29) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.27), compared with 65 years or older.

Similarly, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent sedative-hypnotic users if they received chemotherapy (OR, 2.24), had Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.85), had a breast cancer diagnosis (OR, 1.79), and were 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.65) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.79).

Finally, patients’ likelihood of new persistent use increased with their number of risk factors. For persistent opioid use, the odds ratio rose from 2.27 in patients with two risk factors to 6.34 in those with five risk factors. For persistent sedative-hypnotic use, the odds ratio rose from 2.55 to 7.71, respectively.

The observed incidences of new persistent substance use in this patient population are “striking,” according to Dr. Cogan. Although the identified risk factors can help providers spot patients who should be monitored more closely, a proactive, systematic approach to postoperative follow-up for all patients is likely needed.

“When you are seeing patients in follow-up, this is something that you might want to explicitly ask about, for example, and not just assume that the postoperative opioids were taken and then disposed of,” Dr. Cogan recommended. “Ask them, ‘Are you still taking opioids, are you still taking your Ambien or whatever medication you were prescribed?’ That’s something to diligently follow up on and make sure the drug is disposed of, or if it somebody is still taking it, refer them for the appropriate services.”

In addition, patients should be encouraged to use over-the-counter medications as much as possible, he advised.
 

Prescribing: It’s complicated

“I wonder if perhaps we should not be giving opioids at all to certain patients. For example, a mastectomy and implant reconstruction, oftentimes, surprisingly, that’s not a terribly painful procedure. But a TRAM [transverse rectus abdominis] flap or abdominal flap, that really is,” commented press conference comoderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

“I’ve been surprised that a lot of my patients get the prescription, but they don’t even use the pills, and I wonder if the prescription is given just so that we’re not bothered at nighttime by somebody calling with pain,” Dr. Osbourne added.

Prescribing opioids for postoperative pain is complicated, Dr. Cogan said, noting that the study did not assess the specific type of reconstruction patients had.

“You don’t want people in pain. Even if they need just one or two pills, it’s still reasonable for them to have it, and we certainly don’t want to imply from our study that people shouldn’t be getting these prescriptions if they need them,” Dr. Cogan elaborated. “But once patients have them, don’t just leave them there in their home because other studies have shown that that’s when people really get addicted to these medications, when they use them later on for other reasons, or they keep using them just because they have them around.”

The risk for persistent use of controlled substances “is something that all physicians need to be aware of for their patients. This is something that we are missing,” maintained press conference comoderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, of UT Health San Antonio.

“It’s easy to just give a prescription instead of arguing with a patient about why you are not going to give them a prescription,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “And ultimately ... pain is subjective. If a patient tells you they are in pain, you are, quote-endquote, a bad physician if you tell them they should not be in pain.”

Courtesy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

“We need to focus on other ways to deal with the pain, like physical therapy, sending patients to physical medicine and rehab physicians who are trained to help with symptoms from the surgery, with range of motion and all that; that can help with pain,” she recommended. “It’s much harder to do that, right, than to send a prescription in for a narcotic? But that easy answer is always the worst answer.”

This study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cogan declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Osborne disclosed relationships with Wolters Kluwer, Lilly, Tolmar, and GeneTex. Dr. Kaklamani disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene, Celldex, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, Genomic Health, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Cogan JC et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-08.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Americans have made no secret of their skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines this year, with fears of political interference and a “warp speed” timeline blunting confidence in the shots. As recently as September, nearly half of U.S. adults said they didn’t intend to be inoculated.

But with two promising vaccines primed for release, likely within weeks, experts in ethics and immunization behavior say they expect attitudes to shift quickly from widespread hesitancy to urgent, even heated demand.

“People talk about the antivaccine people being able to kind of squelch uptake. I don’t see that happening,” Dr. Paul Offit, MD, a vaccinologist with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told viewers of a recent JAMA Network webinar. “This, to me, is more like the Beanie Baby phenomenon. The attractiveness of a limited edition.”

Reports that vaccines produced by drugmakers Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna appear to be safe and effective, along with the deliberate emphasis on science-based guidance from the incoming Biden administration, are likely to reverse uncertainty in a big way, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.

“I think that’s going to flip the trust issue,” he said.

The shift is already apparent. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that by the end of November 60% of Americans said they would get a vaccine for the coronavirus. This month, even as a federal advisory group met to hash out guidelines for vaccine distribution, a long list of advocacy groups – from those representing home-based health workers and community health centers to patients with kidney disease – were lobbying state and federal officials in hopes their constituents would be prioritized for the first scarce doses.

“As we get closer to the vaccine being a reality, there’s a lot of jockeying, to be sure,” said Katie Smith Sloan, chief executive of LeadingAge, a nonprofit organization pushing for staff and patients at long-term care centers to be included in the highest-priority category.

Certainly, some consumers remain wary, said Rupali Limaye, PhD, a social and behavioral health scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. Fears that drugmakers and regulators might cut corners to speed a vaccine linger, even as details of the trials become public and the review process is made more transparent. Some health care workers, who are at the front of the line for the shots, are not eager to go first.

“There will be people who will say, ‘I will wait a little bit more for safety data,” Dr. Limaye said.

But those doubts likely will recede once the vaccines are approved for use and begin to circulate broadly, said Dr. Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel set to review the requests for emergency authorization Pfizer and Moderna have submitted.

He predicted demand for the COVID vaccines could rival the clamor that occurred in 2004, when production problems caused a severe shortage of flu shots just as influenza season began. That led to long lines, rationed doses and ethical debates over distribution.

“That was a highly desired vaccine,” Dr. Offit said. “I think in many ways that might happen here.”

Initially, vaccine supplies will be tight, with federal officials planning to ship 6.4 million doses within 24 hours of FDA authorization and up to 40 million doses by the end of the year. The CDC panel recommended that the first shots go to the 21 million health care workers in the United States and 3 million nursing home staff and residents, before being rolled out to other groups based on a hierarchy of risk factors.

Even before any vaccine is available, some people are trying to boost their chances of access, said Allison Kempe, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, and expert in vaccine dissemination. “People have called me and said, ‘How can I get the vaccine?’” she said. “I think that not everyone will be happy to wait, that’s for sure. I don’t think there will be rioting in the streets, but there may be pressure brought to bear.”

That likely will include emotional debates over how, when, and to whom next doses should be distributed, said Dr. Caplan. Under the CDC recommendations, vulnerable groups next in line include 87 million workers whose jobs are deemed “essential” – a broad and ill-defined category – as well as 53 million adults age 65 and older.

“We’re going to have some fights about high-risk groups,” Dr. Caplan said.

The conversations will be complicated. Should prisoners, who have little control over their COVID exposure, get vaccine priority? How about professional sports teams, whose performance could bolster society’s overall morale? And what about residents of facilities providing care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the general population?

Control over vaccination allocation rests with the states, so that’s where the biggest conflicts will occur, Dr. Caplan said. “It’s a short fight, I hope, in the sense in which it gets done in a few months, but I think it will be pretty vocal.”

Once vaccine supplies become more plentiful, perhaps by May or June, another consideration is sure to boost demand: requirements for proof of COVID vaccination for work and travel.

“It’s inevitable that you’re going to see immunity passports or that you’re required to show a certificate on the train, airplane, bus, or subway,” Dr. Caplan predicted. “Probably also to enter certain hospitals, probably to enter certain restaurants and government facilities.”

But with a grueling winter surge ahead, and new predictions that COVID-19 will fell as many as 450,000 Americans by February, the tragic reality of the disease will no doubt fuel ample demand for vaccination.

“People now know someone who has gotten COVID, who has been hospitalized or has unfortunately died,” Dr. Limaye said.

“We’re all seeing this now,” said Dr. Kempe. “Even deniers are beginning to see what this illness can do.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

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

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

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

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

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

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health & Human Services are calling on health care professionals, hospitals, employers, insurers, women, and the nation to work together to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality – and the disparities that make the risks higher for women of color.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States is the highest among developed countries of the world and continues to rise. In 2018, for every 100,000 live births, approximately 17 women died while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy or delivery – that’s a substantial increase from 7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987, according to the surgeon general’s new call to action.

“Our mothers had much lower rates of dying related to pregnancy, compared to women today,” Dorothy Fink, MD, HHS deputy assistant secretary for women’s health, said at a briefing held Dec. 3 to mark the call to action.

Cardiovascular conditions were the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths between 2011 and 2015, accounting for more than one in three of the deaths. HHS’s related action plan sets a target of achieving blood pressure control in 80% of women of reproductive age with hypertension by 2025.

The plan also seeks to reduce the maternal mortality rate by 50% and decrease low-risk cesarean deliveries by 25% within 5 years.

“A woman dies every 12 hours in this country from pregnancy-related complications,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, said at the briefing. “This is not just unacceptable, it is just something that we need to understand is not inevitable,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that two thirds of the deaths are preventable.

Dr. Adams also noted that it was important to address maternal health now, especially with COVID-19 raging. “Without attention and action, maternal health could actually worsen because of this pandemic,” he said.

“We cannot discuss maternal health, much less improve it, unless we acknowledge women of color are at a much greater risk of harm related to childbirth,” Dr. Adams said. “Black women are two to three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes compared to many other racial and ethnic groups.” The disparity increases with age, according to the CDC.

Studies have shown that education does not eliminate those disparities. Black women with a college degree are twice as likely to die as White or Asian American women who did not finish high school, Dr. Adams said.

He held up a photo of a colleague, Shalone Irving, who he said was a PhD-educated epidemiologist who “died not long ago from pregnancy-related complications.”

Income is also not a factor, said Dr. Adams, noting that pop singer Beyonce had a near-death experience with preeclampsia. He also noted that Serena Williams, a top athlete, also struggled with pregnancy complications.
 

Recommendations not all funded

The HHS action plan is not explicitly funded, although Dr. Fink and Dr. Adams said that President Donald J. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget includes some specific requests for improving maternal health. It will be up to Congress to grant the requests.

The budget seeks $80 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve access to and quality of care. It also includes money to expand Medicaid coverage for 1 year after birth for women with substance use disorders. The American Medical Association in 2019 adopted a policy urging Medicaid coverage to be expanded to include all women for a year after childbirth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also encouraged this extension.

“We are encouraged that the HHS action plan includes support for policies to close coverage and care gaps for all postpartum women after pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage expires,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an interview.

The HHS could act immediately by approving Medicaid waivers to extend such coverage, Dr. Phipps said.

The budget also requests $24 million to expand maternal mortality review programs to every state, said Dr. Fink. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia, have such committees, which are charged with reviewing deaths of women within a year of pregnancy or birth.

The HHS will also join with the March of Dimes to address the disparities in Black women by implementing evidence-based best practices to improve quality in hospital settings.

It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2018, the president signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which authorized the CDC to award $50 million over 5 years so that every state could form maternal mortality review committees.

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

The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health & Human Services are calling on health care professionals, hospitals, employers, insurers, women, and the nation to work together to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality – and the disparities that make the risks higher for women of color.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States is the highest among developed countries of the world and continues to rise. In 2018, for every 100,000 live births, approximately 17 women died while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy or delivery – that’s a substantial increase from 7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987, according to the surgeon general’s new call to action.

“Our mothers had much lower rates of dying related to pregnancy, compared to women today,” Dorothy Fink, MD, HHS deputy assistant secretary for women’s health, said at a briefing held Dec. 3 to mark the call to action.

Cardiovascular conditions were the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths between 2011 and 2015, accounting for more than one in three of the deaths. HHS’s related action plan sets a target of achieving blood pressure control in 80% of women of reproductive age with hypertension by 2025.

The plan also seeks to reduce the maternal mortality rate by 50% and decrease low-risk cesarean deliveries by 25% within 5 years.

“A woman dies every 12 hours in this country from pregnancy-related complications,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, said at the briefing. “This is not just unacceptable, it is just something that we need to understand is not inevitable,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that two thirds of the deaths are preventable.

Dr. Adams also noted that it was important to address maternal health now, especially with COVID-19 raging. “Without attention and action, maternal health could actually worsen because of this pandemic,” he said.

“We cannot discuss maternal health, much less improve it, unless we acknowledge women of color are at a much greater risk of harm related to childbirth,” Dr. Adams said. “Black women are two to three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes compared to many other racial and ethnic groups.” The disparity increases with age, according to the CDC.

Studies have shown that education does not eliminate those disparities. Black women with a college degree are twice as likely to die as White or Asian American women who did not finish high school, Dr. Adams said.

He held up a photo of a colleague, Shalone Irving, who he said was a PhD-educated epidemiologist who “died not long ago from pregnancy-related complications.”

Income is also not a factor, said Dr. Adams, noting that pop singer Beyonce had a near-death experience with preeclampsia. He also noted that Serena Williams, a top athlete, also struggled with pregnancy complications.
 

Recommendations not all funded

The HHS action plan is not explicitly funded, although Dr. Fink and Dr. Adams said that President Donald J. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget includes some specific requests for improving maternal health. It will be up to Congress to grant the requests.

The budget seeks $80 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve access to and quality of care. It also includes money to expand Medicaid coverage for 1 year after birth for women with substance use disorders. The American Medical Association in 2019 adopted a policy urging Medicaid coverage to be expanded to include all women for a year after childbirth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also encouraged this extension.

“We are encouraged that the HHS action plan includes support for policies to close coverage and care gaps for all postpartum women after pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage expires,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an interview.

The HHS could act immediately by approving Medicaid waivers to extend such coverage, Dr. Phipps said.

The budget also requests $24 million to expand maternal mortality review programs to every state, said Dr. Fink. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia, have such committees, which are charged with reviewing deaths of women within a year of pregnancy or birth.

The HHS will also join with the March of Dimes to address the disparities in Black women by implementing evidence-based best practices to improve quality in hospital settings.

It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2018, the president signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which authorized the CDC to award $50 million over 5 years so that every state could form maternal mortality review committees.

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

The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health & Human Services are calling on health care professionals, hospitals, employers, insurers, women, and the nation to work together to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality – and the disparities that make the risks higher for women of color.

The maternal mortality rate in the United States is the highest among developed countries of the world and continues to rise. In 2018, for every 100,000 live births, approximately 17 women died while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy or delivery – that’s a substantial increase from 7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987, according to the surgeon general’s new call to action.

“Our mothers had much lower rates of dying related to pregnancy, compared to women today,” Dorothy Fink, MD, HHS deputy assistant secretary for women’s health, said at a briefing held Dec. 3 to mark the call to action.

Cardiovascular conditions were the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths between 2011 and 2015, accounting for more than one in three of the deaths. HHS’s related action plan sets a target of achieving blood pressure control in 80% of women of reproductive age with hypertension by 2025.

The plan also seeks to reduce the maternal mortality rate by 50% and decrease low-risk cesarean deliveries by 25% within 5 years.

“A woman dies every 12 hours in this country from pregnancy-related complications,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, said at the briefing. “This is not just unacceptable, it is just something that we need to understand is not inevitable,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that two thirds of the deaths are preventable.

Dr. Adams also noted that it was important to address maternal health now, especially with COVID-19 raging. “Without attention and action, maternal health could actually worsen because of this pandemic,” he said.

“We cannot discuss maternal health, much less improve it, unless we acknowledge women of color are at a much greater risk of harm related to childbirth,” Dr. Adams said. “Black women are two to three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes compared to many other racial and ethnic groups.” The disparity increases with age, according to the CDC.

Studies have shown that education does not eliminate those disparities. Black women with a college degree are twice as likely to die as White or Asian American women who did not finish high school, Dr. Adams said.

He held up a photo of a colleague, Shalone Irving, who he said was a PhD-educated epidemiologist who “died not long ago from pregnancy-related complications.”

Income is also not a factor, said Dr. Adams, noting that pop singer Beyonce had a near-death experience with preeclampsia. He also noted that Serena Williams, a top athlete, also struggled with pregnancy complications.
 

Recommendations not all funded

The HHS action plan is not explicitly funded, although Dr. Fink and Dr. Adams said that President Donald J. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget includes some specific requests for improving maternal health. It will be up to Congress to grant the requests.

The budget seeks $80 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve access to and quality of care. It also includes money to expand Medicaid coverage for 1 year after birth for women with substance use disorders. The American Medical Association in 2019 adopted a policy urging Medicaid coverage to be expanded to include all women for a year after childbirth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also encouraged this extension.

“We are encouraged that the HHS action plan includes support for policies to close coverage and care gaps for all postpartum women after pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage expires,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an interview.

The HHS could act immediately by approving Medicaid waivers to extend such coverage, Dr. Phipps said.

The budget also requests $24 million to expand maternal mortality review programs to every state, said Dr. Fink. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia, have such committees, which are charged with reviewing deaths of women within a year of pregnancy or birth.

The HHS will also join with the March of Dimes to address the disparities in Black women by implementing evidence-based best practices to improve quality in hospital settings.

It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2018, the president signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which authorized the CDC to award $50 million over 5 years so that every state could form maternal mortality review committees.

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

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Increasingly, bone health and fragility fracture prevention is one of the most important aspects of healthy aging that we, as women’s health care providers (HCPs), must be sure is part of our thought process in caring for women at midlife and beyond. Virtually all ObGyn HCPs are aware of breast health, both in terms of the clinical breast exam and imaging surveillance. The 5-year relative survival rate for “localized breast cancer” is 99%.¹ Most recent data on hip fracture, however, indicate that it is associated with a mortality in the first year of 21%!² We need to be sure that our patients understand this.

Previously, this column provided an update on osteoporosis. In 2016, I asked to change the focus to “Update on bone health” to highlight that simply relying on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing of bone mass with arbitrary cutoffs for osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal bone mass is not adequate for improving overall bone health. The addition of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool, now widely employed, as well as the trabecular bone score (TBS), not widely employed, helps to refine the assessment of patients’ risk status. Further, issues such as sarcopenia, adequate dietary calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fall prevention (improving balance, use of nonskid rugs in the bathroom, avoiding black ice when present, having nothing to slip on between the bed and the bathroom in the middle of the night, and so on) also are essential elements of “bone health.”

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of developing a good relationship with whatever facility one uses for DXA testing in order to maximize use of the reports and potential limitations. In addition, we should identify a metabolic bone specialist for referral of unusual cases or patients who require medications unlikely to be prescribed by us as ObGyns, and develop some familiarity with therapies that may be utilized.

Osteosarcopenia greatly enhances fall and fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola W, Phu S, Bani Hassan E, et al. The joint occurrence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia (osteosarcopenia): definitions and characteristics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:220-225.

Tokeshi S, Eguchi Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relationship between skeletal muscle mass, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Asian Spine J. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0045.

Kirk B, Zanker J, Duque G. Osteosarcopenia: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment—facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:609-618.

The topic of sarcopenia as defined by the concurrent presence of low muscle mass, physical performance, and strength has been discussed previously in this Update series.³ Now, osteosarcopenia, defined as the concomitant presence of osteoporosis or osteopenia combined with sarcopenia, seems to be an extremely important gauge of fracture risk, especially now as the population’s longevity has increased dramatically. This new syndrome is associated with higher disability and rates of fracture and falls in older people compared with either entity (the bone component or the sarcopenia component) alone.^4,5 In fact, in the 2016 ICD-10-CM, sarcopenia was finally recognized as a disease entity.

Severe sarcopenia is known to increase the risk for falls.⁶ Furthermore, evidence is increasing of cross talk between muscle and bone.⁴ The diagnostic criteria of osteopenia and osteoporosis are well established; however, absolute criteria for sarcopenia lack an international consensus.

Continue to: Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk...

Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of 253 participants, of which 77% were women, average age 78, who presented for a “falls and fractures” risk assessment. T-scores were measured by DXA. In addition, the investigators measured components of sarcopenia, including physical performance (evaluated by hand grip strength, gait speed, timed up and go test, and 5-time sit to stand test) and dynamic and static balance. Falls in the previous year were self-reported, with 42% of participants having fallen once and 54%, more than once.

Results. Participants with osteosarcopenia had a statistically significant increased rate of falls of approximately threefold and an increased rate of fractures that was approximately fourfold when compared with osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.

Another important finding was that, despite the links between osteoporosis, fracture, and poor clinical outcomes, the investigators did not find differences in fracture rates in the osteopenic compared with the osteoporotic classifications. Their findings corroborated those of other studies that reported discrepancies in fractures and bone mineral density (BMD), with osteopenic older adults experiencing fracture rates similar to and in some cases greater than those diagnosed with osteoporosis.⁷

Thus, it appears that the use of T-scores that combine osteopenic and osteoporotic criteria into the osteosarcopenic category may be sufficient to capture individuals at the greatest risk of fracture.

Skeletal muscle mass plays a role in vertebral compression fractures

Tokeshi and colleagues conducted retrospective observational study to investigate the relationships between skeletal muscle mass, BMD, and TBS in individuals with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

They evaluated 142 patients with an average age of 75; of these, 30% had radiographically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures (average age, 79) and 70% had no vertebral compression fractures (average age, 70). Body composition was measured using whole-body DXA; appendicular skeletal muscle mass index was determined as the sum of upper and lower extremities’ lean mass (kg/height in m² ). TBS was measured using the patented algorithm software on DXA scans for the lumbar vertebrae.

Results. The investigators found that the vertebral compression fracture group was statistically significantly older, had lower femur BMD, and had decreased leg muscle mass. The TBS was not identified as a risk factor.

Certain lifestyle factors add to risk of osteosarcopenia

In an editorial, Kirk and colleagues summarized the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteosarcopenia. They concluded that this syndrome can be expected to grow in age-related and disease-related states as a consequence of immunosenescence coinciding with an increase in sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and fat infiltration of muscle and bone.

Increasingly, clinicians should screen for osteosarcopenia via imaging methods (DXA) to quantitate bone mass (as is currently done) and, increasingly, quantify muscle mass. In addition, assessment of muscle strength, easily done by testing grip strength, as well as functional capacity (gait speed), will become increasingly important.

Finally, the authors call for a more comprehensive geriatric assessment that includes medical history and risk factors as well as treatment (including osteoporosis drugs, where indicated), and progressive resistance and balance exercises. Nutritional recommendations, in terms of protein, vitamin D, and calcium, also are necessary. They anticipate that diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcopenia will become part of routine health care in the future.

Continue to: The denosumab discontinuation dilemma...

The denosumab discontinuation dilemma

Lyu H, Yoshida K, Zhao SS, et al. Delayed denosumab injections and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:516-526.

Tripto-Shkolnik L, Fund N, Rouach V, et al. Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: real-world data from a large healthcare provider. Bone. 2020;130:115150.

Denosumab, marketed under the brand name Prolia, is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of RANK ligand and inhibits development and activity of osteoclast, thus decreasing bone resorption and increasing BMD. In the original pivotal clinical trial of denosumab, almost 7,900 women between the ages of 60 and 90 (average age, 73) with osteoporotic T-scores were enrolled.⁸ The women were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months or placebo for a total of 3 years. In that trial, the denosumabtreated group, relative to the placebo group, showed a statistically significant decrease in radiographic vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. 

An open-label extension study looked at denosumab use for a total of 10 years.⁹ That study found that denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. Thus, denosumab appeared to be an extremely safe and effective agent for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Denosumab cessation leads to rebound vertebral fractures

As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix, and bone turnover is not suppressed after cessation of its use. Reports have implied that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures.¹⁰ One theory is that unlike atypical femoral fractures that seem to emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, denosumab rebound–associated vertebral fractures seem to originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of this highly potent reversible agent.¹¹

Post hoc analysis of the denosumab placebo-controlled trial and its extension reported that the vertebral fracture rate increased after denosumab discontinuation to the level observed in untreated patients.¹² Further, a majority of participants who did sustain vertebral fracture after discontinuing denosumab had multiple vertebral fractures, with the risk being greatest in participants who had a prior vertebral facture. This caused those authors to suggest that patients who discontinued denosumab should rapidly transition to an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

Effect of dose delays, discontinuation on vertebral fracture rate

Lyu and colleagues recently described their population-based cohort study of the United Kingdom’s Health Improvement Network primary care database between 2010 and 2019. They found that delayed administration of a subsequent denosumab dose by more than 16 weeks was associated with an increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing. They noted, however, that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk at any other anatomic sites is increased with such a delay.

In a similar study, Tripto-Shkolnik and colleagues examined an Israeli database of 2.3 million members in a state-mandated health organization. They identified osteoporotic patients with at least 2 denosumab prescription dispenses and defined treatment discontinuation as a refill gap of 3 months or more. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry, including fractures that occurred within 1 year from discontinuation in denosumab discontinuers as well as from the second year of treatment forward for persistent users. They identified 1,500 denosumab discontinuers (average age, 72) and 1,610 persistent users (average age also 72). At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture history, smoking, and bone density.

In the discontinuation group, 0.8% had multiple vertebral fractures versus 0.1% in the persistent users (P = .006); the overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was 3 times higher in the discontinuation group than in the persistent user group, and the rate of vertebral fractures was almost 5 times higher in the discontinuation group.

Continue to: Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use...

Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use

Black DM, Geiger EJ, Eastell R, et al. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:743-753.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment. This category of medications inhibits osteoclast-mediated resorption and remodeling of bone. Various large, randomized, controlled trials have established the efficacy of bisphosphonates to increase BMD and decrease the risk of hip and vertebral fracture by as much as 40% to 70%.¹³

However, case reports of unusual fragility fractures in the subtrochanteric region and along the femoral diaphysis in patients treated with bisphosphonates started to appear approximately 15 years ago.¹⁴ Since then, concerns and publicity about these atypical fractures have led to substantial declines in bisphosphonate use clinically.

Bisphosphonate preventive benefits versus atypical fracture risk

Black and colleagues reviewed data on women 50 years and older who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system in California. The total cohort included slightly more than 1 million women, of which almost 200,000 (17.9%) used bisphosphonates at any point from 2007–2017.

A total of 277 atypical femur fractures occurred. Among bisphosphonate users, there were 1.74 fractures per 10,000 patient-years. Overall, there were almost 59 fractures per 10,000 person-years. The incidence of atypical fractures was highest in women between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and the incidence diminished after age 85. Rates of atypical fractures increased as the duration of bisphosphonate use increased. In addition, rates of atypical fractures decreased with time since bisphosphonate discontinuation.

The rate of atypical fractures in women who had never received bisphosphonate therapy was 0.1 per 10,000 person-years. The number of fractures prevented for each fracture type far outweighed bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures at all time points along the 10 years of study. In White women, for instance, at 3 years there were 541 clinical fractures prevented and 149 hip fractures prevented, while 2 bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures occurred, all per 10,000 women.

Interestingly, in the Asian population at the same time point, 330 clinical fractures were prevented and 91 hip fractures were prevented, but 8 atypical fractures of the femur occurred, per 10,000 women. The authors further referenced an earlier Kaiser study that showed that 49% of 142 atypical femur fractures occurred in Asian patients who comprised only 10% of the study population.¹⁵

The authors concluded that the risk of atypical femur fracture increases with longer duration of bisphosphate use and rapidly decreases after bisphosphate discontinuation. Asian women have a higher risk than White women. With bisphosphonate treatment, the absolute risk of atypical femur fracture is very low compared with the reduction in the risk of hip and other fractures.

Continue to: Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores...

Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores

Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Ebeling PR, et al. T-score as an indicator of fracture risk during treatment with romosozumab or alendronate in the ARCH trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1333-1342

Romosozumab (Evenity) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thus having the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.¹⁶ It is administered for 1 year as monthly doses of 210 mg subcutaneously. Previous studies have shown that romosozumab produces large increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD,¹⁷ reduces the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures compared with placebo,¹⁶ and reduces the risk of vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures compared with alendronate over a median treatment period of 33 months (the ARCH study).¹⁸

According to the package insert, romosozumab is indicated “for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, defined as a history of osteoporotic fracture, or multiple risk factors for fracture; or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.”

Should T-score be a therapeutic target?

Cosman and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of the ARCH trial specifically to evaluate mean BMD and corresponding mean T-score changes (and the relationships between T-scores) after 1 year of romosozumab or alendronate therapy and subsequent fracture incidence. The study is quite detailed with much numerical data and statistical analysis.

Basically, the ARCH trial randomly assigned patients with osteoporosis to receive either monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months. After the double-blind portion of the trial, all patients received open label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg through the end of study (24 months), although they were still blinded to the initial treatment assignment. In addition, patients received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.

The data analysis found that 1 year of romosozumab led to larger BMD gains than alendronate therapy. Also, the T-score achieved with either therapy was directly related to subsequent fracture risk. The authors thus proposed that these data support the use of the T-score as a therapeutic target for patients with osteoporosis.

It is important to note that in the original ARCH study, the participants’ average age was 71 years and approximately one-third were older than 75. The average T-score was -2.7 at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Approximately 20% of patients had a pre-existing vertebral fracture, and approximately 20% had a previous nonvertebral fracture.

The authors of the current study, furthermore, found that mean BMD gains after 1 year of romosozumab treatment were more than twice those seen with alendronate at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. These BMD changes resulted in a larger proportion of patients who achieved T-scores above the osteoporosis level at each of the skeletal sites after 1 year of therapy. Fewer fractures occurred during the second year and the entire open label period among patients who had received romosozumab first compared with those who received alendronate.●

Increasingly, bone health and fragility fracture prevention is one of the most important aspects of healthy aging that we, as women’s health care providers (HCPs), must be sure is part of our thought process in caring for women at midlife and beyond. Virtually all ObGyn HCPs are aware of breast health, both in terms of the clinical breast exam and imaging surveillance. The 5-year relative survival rate for “localized breast cancer” is 99%.¹ Most recent data on hip fracture, however, indicate that it is associated with a mortality in the first year of 21%!² We need to be sure that our patients understand this.

Previously, this column provided an update on osteoporosis. In 2016, I asked to change the focus to “Update on bone health” to highlight that simply relying on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing of bone mass with arbitrary cutoffs for osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal bone mass is not adequate for improving overall bone health. The addition of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool, now widely employed, as well as the trabecular bone score (TBS), not widely employed, helps to refine the assessment of patients’ risk status. Further, issues such as sarcopenia, adequate dietary calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fall prevention (improving balance, use of nonskid rugs in the bathroom, avoiding black ice when present, having nothing to slip on between the bed and the bathroom in the middle of the night, and so on) also are essential elements of “bone health.”

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of developing a good relationship with whatever facility one uses for DXA testing in order to maximize use of the reports and potential limitations. In addition, we should identify a metabolic bone specialist for referral of unusual cases or patients who require medications unlikely to be prescribed by us as ObGyns, and develop some familiarity with therapies that may be utilized.

Osteosarcopenia greatly enhances fall and fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola W, Phu S, Bani Hassan E, et al. The joint occurrence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia (osteosarcopenia): definitions and characteristics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:220-225.

Tokeshi S, Eguchi Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relationship between skeletal muscle mass, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Asian Spine J. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0045.

Kirk B, Zanker J, Duque G. Osteosarcopenia: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment—facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:609-618.

The topic of sarcopenia as defined by the concurrent presence of low muscle mass, physical performance, and strength has been discussed previously in this Update series.³ Now, osteosarcopenia, defined as the concomitant presence of osteoporosis or osteopenia combined with sarcopenia, seems to be an extremely important gauge of fracture risk, especially now as the population’s longevity has increased dramatically. This new syndrome is associated with higher disability and rates of fracture and falls in older people compared with either entity (the bone component or the sarcopenia component) alone.^4,5 In fact, in the 2016 ICD-10-CM, sarcopenia was finally recognized as a disease entity.

Severe sarcopenia is known to increase the risk for falls.⁶ Furthermore, evidence is increasing of cross talk between muscle and bone.⁴ The diagnostic criteria of osteopenia and osteoporosis are well established; however, absolute criteria for sarcopenia lack an international consensus.

Continue to: Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk...

Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of 253 participants, of which 77% were women, average age 78, who presented for a “falls and fractures” risk assessment. T-scores were measured by DXA. In addition, the investigators measured components of sarcopenia, including physical performance (evaluated by hand grip strength, gait speed, timed up and go test, and 5-time sit to stand test) and dynamic and static balance. Falls in the previous year were self-reported, with 42% of participants having fallen once and 54%, more than once.

Results. Participants with osteosarcopenia had a statistically significant increased rate of falls of approximately threefold and an increased rate of fractures that was approximately fourfold when compared with osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.

Another important finding was that, despite the links between osteoporosis, fracture, and poor clinical outcomes, the investigators did not find differences in fracture rates in the osteopenic compared with the osteoporotic classifications. Their findings corroborated those of other studies that reported discrepancies in fractures and bone mineral density (BMD), with osteopenic older adults experiencing fracture rates similar to and in some cases greater than those diagnosed with osteoporosis.⁷

Thus, it appears that the use of T-scores that combine osteopenic and osteoporotic criteria into the osteosarcopenic category may be sufficient to capture individuals at the greatest risk of fracture.

Skeletal muscle mass plays a role in vertebral compression fractures

Tokeshi and colleagues conducted retrospective observational study to investigate the relationships between skeletal muscle mass, BMD, and TBS in individuals with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

They evaluated 142 patients with an average age of 75; of these, 30% had radiographically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures (average age, 79) and 70% had no vertebral compression fractures (average age, 70). Body composition was measured using whole-body DXA; appendicular skeletal muscle mass index was determined as the sum of upper and lower extremities’ lean mass (kg/height in m² ). TBS was measured using the patented algorithm software on DXA scans for the lumbar vertebrae.

Results. The investigators found that the vertebral compression fracture group was statistically significantly older, had lower femur BMD, and had decreased leg muscle mass. The TBS was not identified as a risk factor.

Certain lifestyle factors add to risk of osteosarcopenia

In an editorial, Kirk and colleagues summarized the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteosarcopenia. They concluded that this syndrome can be expected to grow in age-related and disease-related states as a consequence of immunosenescence coinciding with an increase in sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and fat infiltration of muscle and bone.

Increasingly, clinicians should screen for osteosarcopenia via imaging methods (DXA) to quantitate bone mass (as is currently done) and, increasingly, quantify muscle mass. In addition, assessment of muscle strength, easily done by testing grip strength, as well as functional capacity (gait speed), will become increasingly important.

Finally, the authors call for a more comprehensive geriatric assessment that includes medical history and risk factors as well as treatment (including osteoporosis drugs, where indicated), and progressive resistance and balance exercises. Nutritional recommendations, in terms of protein, vitamin D, and calcium, also are necessary. They anticipate that diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcopenia will become part of routine health care in the future.

Continue to: The denosumab discontinuation dilemma...

The denosumab discontinuation dilemma

Lyu H, Yoshida K, Zhao SS, et al. Delayed denosumab injections and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:516-526.

Tripto-Shkolnik L, Fund N, Rouach V, et al. Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: real-world data from a large healthcare provider. Bone. 2020;130:115150.

Denosumab, marketed under the brand name Prolia, is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of RANK ligand and inhibits development and activity of osteoclast, thus decreasing bone resorption and increasing BMD. In the original pivotal clinical trial of denosumab, almost 7,900 women between the ages of 60 and 90 (average age, 73) with osteoporotic T-scores were enrolled.⁸ The women were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months or placebo for a total of 3 years. In that trial, the denosumabtreated group, relative to the placebo group, showed a statistically significant decrease in radiographic vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. 

An open-label extension study looked at denosumab use for a total of 10 years.⁹ That study found that denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. Thus, denosumab appeared to be an extremely safe and effective agent for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Denosumab cessation leads to rebound vertebral fractures

As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix, and bone turnover is not suppressed after cessation of its use. Reports have implied that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures.¹⁰ One theory is that unlike atypical femoral fractures that seem to emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, denosumab rebound–associated vertebral fractures seem to originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of this highly potent reversible agent.¹¹

Post hoc analysis of the denosumab placebo-controlled trial and its extension reported that the vertebral fracture rate increased after denosumab discontinuation to the level observed in untreated patients.¹² Further, a majority of participants who did sustain vertebral fracture after discontinuing denosumab had multiple vertebral fractures, with the risk being greatest in participants who had a prior vertebral facture. This caused those authors to suggest that patients who discontinued denosumab should rapidly transition to an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

Effect of dose delays, discontinuation on vertebral fracture rate

Lyu and colleagues recently described their population-based cohort study of the United Kingdom’s Health Improvement Network primary care database between 2010 and 2019. They found that delayed administration of a subsequent denosumab dose by more than 16 weeks was associated with an increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing. They noted, however, that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk at any other anatomic sites is increased with such a delay.

In a similar study, Tripto-Shkolnik and colleagues examined an Israeli database of 2.3 million members in a state-mandated health organization. They identified osteoporotic patients with at least 2 denosumab prescription dispenses and defined treatment discontinuation as a refill gap of 3 months or more. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry, including fractures that occurred within 1 year from discontinuation in denosumab discontinuers as well as from the second year of treatment forward for persistent users. They identified 1,500 denosumab discontinuers (average age, 72) and 1,610 persistent users (average age also 72). At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture history, smoking, and bone density.

In the discontinuation group, 0.8% had multiple vertebral fractures versus 0.1% in the persistent users (P = .006); the overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was 3 times higher in the discontinuation group than in the persistent user group, and the rate of vertebral fractures was almost 5 times higher in the discontinuation group.

Continue to: Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use...

Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use

Black DM, Geiger EJ, Eastell R, et al. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:743-753.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment. This category of medications inhibits osteoclast-mediated resorption and remodeling of bone. Various large, randomized, controlled trials have established the efficacy of bisphosphonates to increase BMD and decrease the risk of hip and vertebral fracture by as much as 40% to 70%.¹³

However, case reports of unusual fragility fractures in the subtrochanteric region and along the femoral diaphysis in patients treated with bisphosphonates started to appear approximately 15 years ago.¹⁴ Since then, concerns and publicity about these atypical fractures have led to substantial declines in bisphosphonate use clinically.

Bisphosphonate preventive benefits versus atypical fracture risk

Black and colleagues reviewed data on women 50 years and older who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system in California. The total cohort included slightly more than 1 million women, of which almost 200,000 (17.9%) used bisphosphonates at any point from 2007–2017.

A total of 277 atypical femur fractures occurred. Among bisphosphonate users, there were 1.74 fractures per 10,000 patient-years. Overall, there were almost 59 fractures per 10,000 person-years. The incidence of atypical fractures was highest in women between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and the incidence diminished after age 85. Rates of atypical fractures increased as the duration of bisphosphonate use increased. In addition, rates of atypical fractures decreased with time since bisphosphonate discontinuation.

The rate of atypical fractures in women who had never received bisphosphonate therapy was 0.1 per 10,000 person-years. The number of fractures prevented for each fracture type far outweighed bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures at all time points along the 10 years of study. In White women, for instance, at 3 years there were 541 clinical fractures prevented and 149 hip fractures prevented, while 2 bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures occurred, all per 10,000 women.

Interestingly, in the Asian population at the same time point, 330 clinical fractures were prevented and 91 hip fractures were prevented, but 8 atypical fractures of the femur occurred, per 10,000 women. The authors further referenced an earlier Kaiser study that showed that 49% of 142 atypical femur fractures occurred in Asian patients who comprised only 10% of the study population.¹⁵

The authors concluded that the risk of atypical femur fracture increases with longer duration of bisphosphate use and rapidly decreases after bisphosphate discontinuation. Asian women have a higher risk than White women. With bisphosphonate treatment, the absolute risk of atypical femur fracture is very low compared with the reduction in the risk of hip and other fractures.

Continue to: Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores...

Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores

Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Ebeling PR, et al. T-score as an indicator of fracture risk during treatment with romosozumab or alendronate in the ARCH trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1333-1342

Romosozumab (Evenity) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thus having the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.¹⁶ It is administered for 1 year as monthly doses of 210 mg subcutaneously. Previous studies have shown that romosozumab produces large increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD,¹⁷ reduces the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures compared with placebo,¹⁶ and reduces the risk of vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures compared with alendronate over a median treatment period of 33 months (the ARCH study).¹⁸

According to the package insert, romosozumab is indicated “for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, defined as a history of osteoporotic fracture, or multiple risk factors for fracture; or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.”

Should T-score be a therapeutic target?

Cosman and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of the ARCH trial specifically to evaluate mean BMD and corresponding mean T-score changes (and the relationships between T-scores) after 1 year of romosozumab or alendronate therapy and subsequent fracture incidence. The study is quite detailed with much numerical data and statistical analysis.

Basically, the ARCH trial randomly assigned patients with osteoporosis to receive either monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months. After the double-blind portion of the trial, all patients received open label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg through the end of study (24 months), although they were still blinded to the initial treatment assignment. In addition, patients received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.

The data analysis found that 1 year of romosozumab led to larger BMD gains than alendronate therapy. Also, the T-score achieved with either therapy was directly related to subsequent fracture risk. The authors thus proposed that these data support the use of the T-score as a therapeutic target for patients with osteoporosis.

It is important to note that in the original ARCH study, the participants’ average age was 71 years and approximately one-third were older than 75. The average T-score was -2.7 at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Approximately 20% of patients had a pre-existing vertebral fracture, and approximately 20% had a previous nonvertebral fracture.

The authors of the current study, furthermore, found that mean BMD gains after 1 year of romosozumab treatment were more than twice those seen with alendronate at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. These BMD changes resulted in a larger proportion of patients who achieved T-scores above the osteoporosis level at each of the skeletal sites after 1 year of therapy. Fewer fractures occurred during the second year and the entire open label period among patients who had received romosozumab first compared with those who received alendronate.●

Increasingly, bone health and fragility fracture prevention is one of the most important aspects of healthy aging that we, as women’s health care providers (HCPs), must be sure is part of our thought process in caring for women at midlife and beyond. Virtually all ObGyn HCPs are aware of breast health, both in terms of the clinical breast exam and imaging surveillance. The 5-year relative survival rate for “localized breast cancer” is 99%.¹ Most recent data on hip fracture, however, indicate that it is associated with a mortality in the first year of 21%!² We need to be sure that our patients understand this.

Previously, this column provided an update on osteoporosis. In 2016, I asked to change the focus to “Update on bone health” to highlight that simply relying on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing of bone mass with arbitrary cutoffs for osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal bone mass is not adequate for improving overall bone health. The addition of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool, now widely employed, as well as the trabecular bone score (TBS), not widely employed, helps to refine the assessment of patients’ risk status. Further, issues such as sarcopenia, adequate dietary calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and fall prevention (improving balance, use of nonskid rugs in the bathroom, avoiding black ice when present, having nothing to slip on between the bed and the bathroom in the middle of the night, and so on) also are essential elements of “bone health.”

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of developing a good relationship with whatever facility one uses for DXA testing in order to maximize use of the reports and potential limitations. In addition, we should identify a metabolic bone specialist for referral of unusual cases or patients who require medications unlikely to be prescribed by us as ObGyns, and develop some familiarity with therapies that may be utilized.

Osteosarcopenia greatly enhances fall and fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola W, Phu S, Bani Hassan E, et al. The joint occurrence of osteoporosis and sarcopenia (osteosarcopenia): definitions and characteristics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:220-225.

Tokeshi S, Eguchi Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relationship between skeletal muscle mass, bone mineral density, and trabecular bone score in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Asian Spine J. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0045.

Kirk B, Zanker J, Duque G. Osteosarcopenia: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment—facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11:609-618.

The topic of sarcopenia as defined by the concurrent presence of low muscle mass, physical performance, and strength has been discussed previously in this Update series.³ Now, osteosarcopenia, defined as the concomitant presence of osteoporosis or osteopenia combined with sarcopenia, seems to be an extremely important gauge of fracture risk, especially now as the population’s longevity has increased dramatically. This new syndrome is associated with higher disability and rates of fracture and falls in older people compared with either entity (the bone component or the sarcopenia component) alone.^4,5 In fact, in the 2016 ICD-10-CM, sarcopenia was finally recognized as a disease entity.

Severe sarcopenia is known to increase the risk for falls.⁶ Furthermore, evidence is increasing of cross talk between muscle and bone.⁴ The diagnostic criteria of osteopenia and osteoporosis are well established; however, absolute criteria for sarcopenia lack an international consensus.

Continue to: Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk...

Assess for osteopenia/osteoporosis plus sarcopenia to determine those at greatest fracture risk

Sepúlveda-Loyola and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis of 253 participants, of which 77% were women, average age 78, who presented for a “falls and fractures” risk assessment. T-scores were measured by DXA. In addition, the investigators measured components of sarcopenia, including physical performance (evaluated by hand grip strength, gait speed, timed up and go test, and 5-time sit to stand test) and dynamic and static balance. Falls in the previous year were self-reported, with 42% of participants having fallen once and 54%, more than once.

Results. Participants with osteosarcopenia had a statistically significant increased rate of falls of approximately threefold and an increased rate of fractures that was approximately fourfold when compared with osteopenia or osteoporosis alone.

Another important finding was that, despite the links between osteoporosis, fracture, and poor clinical outcomes, the investigators did not find differences in fracture rates in the osteopenic compared with the osteoporotic classifications. Their findings corroborated those of other studies that reported discrepancies in fractures and bone mineral density (BMD), with osteopenic older adults experiencing fracture rates similar to and in some cases greater than those diagnosed with osteoporosis.⁷

Thus, it appears that the use of T-scores that combine osteopenic and osteoporotic criteria into the osteosarcopenic category may be sufficient to capture individuals at the greatest risk of fracture.

Skeletal muscle mass plays a role in vertebral compression fractures

Tokeshi and colleagues conducted retrospective observational study to investigate the relationships between skeletal muscle mass, BMD, and TBS in individuals with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

They evaluated 142 patients with an average age of 75; of these, 30% had radiographically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures (average age, 79) and 70% had no vertebral compression fractures (average age, 70). Body composition was measured using whole-body DXA; appendicular skeletal muscle mass index was determined as the sum of upper and lower extremities’ lean mass (kg/height in m² ). TBS was measured using the patented algorithm software on DXA scans for the lumbar vertebrae.

Results. The investigators found that the vertebral compression fracture group was statistically significantly older, had lower femur BMD, and had decreased leg muscle mass. The TBS was not identified as a risk factor.

Certain lifestyle factors add to risk of osteosarcopenia

In an editorial, Kirk and colleagues summarized the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteosarcopenia. They concluded that this syndrome can be expected to grow in age-related and disease-related states as a consequence of immunosenescence coinciding with an increase in sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and fat infiltration of muscle and bone.

Increasingly, clinicians should screen for osteosarcopenia via imaging methods (DXA) to quantitate bone mass (as is currently done) and, increasingly, quantify muscle mass. In addition, assessment of muscle strength, easily done by testing grip strength, as well as functional capacity (gait speed), will become increasingly important.

Finally, the authors call for a more comprehensive geriatric assessment that includes medical history and risk factors as well as treatment (including osteoporosis drugs, where indicated), and progressive resistance and balance exercises. Nutritional recommendations, in terms of protein, vitamin D, and calcium, also are necessary. They anticipate that diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcopenia will become part of routine health care in the future.

Continue to: The denosumab discontinuation dilemma...

The denosumab discontinuation dilemma

Lyu H, Yoshida K, Zhao SS, et al. Delayed denosumab injections and fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:516-526.

Tripto-Shkolnik L, Fund N, Rouach V, et al. Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: real-world data from a large healthcare provider. Bone. 2020;130:115150.

Denosumab, marketed under the brand name Prolia, is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of RANK ligand and inhibits development and activity of osteoclast, thus decreasing bone resorption and increasing BMD. In the original pivotal clinical trial of denosumab, almost 7,900 women between the ages of 60 and 90 (average age, 73) with osteoporotic T-scores were enrolled.⁸ The women were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg of denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months or placebo for a total of 3 years. In that trial, the denosumabtreated group, relative to the placebo group, showed a statistically significant decrease in radiographic vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. 

An open-label extension study looked at denosumab use for a total of 10 years.⁹ That study found that denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. Thus, denosumab appeared to be an extremely safe and effective agent for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Denosumab cessation leads to rebound vertebral fractures

As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix, and bone turnover is not suppressed after cessation of its use. Reports have implied that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures.¹⁰ One theory is that unlike atypical femoral fractures that seem to emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, denosumab rebound–associated vertebral fractures seem to originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of this highly potent reversible agent.¹¹

Post hoc analysis of the denosumab placebo-controlled trial and its extension reported that the vertebral fracture rate increased after denosumab discontinuation to the level observed in untreated patients.¹² Further, a majority of participants who did sustain vertebral fracture after discontinuing denosumab had multiple vertebral fractures, with the risk being greatest in participants who had a prior vertebral facture. This caused those authors to suggest that patients who discontinued denosumab should rapidly transition to an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

Effect of dose delays, discontinuation on vertebral fracture rate

Lyu and colleagues recently described their population-based cohort study of the United Kingdom’s Health Improvement Network primary care database between 2010 and 2019. They found that delayed administration of a subsequent denosumab dose by more than 16 weeks was associated with an increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing. They noted, however, that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk at any other anatomic sites is increased with such a delay.

In a similar study, Tripto-Shkolnik and colleagues examined an Israeli database of 2.3 million members in a state-mandated health organization. They identified osteoporotic patients with at least 2 denosumab prescription dispenses and defined treatment discontinuation as a refill gap of 3 months or more. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry, including fractures that occurred within 1 year from discontinuation in denosumab discontinuers as well as from the second year of treatment forward for persistent users. They identified 1,500 denosumab discontinuers (average age, 72) and 1,610 persistent users (average age also 72). At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture history, smoking, and bone density.

In the discontinuation group, 0.8% had multiple vertebral fractures versus 0.1% in the persistent users (P = .006); the overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was 3 times higher in the discontinuation group than in the persistent user group, and the rate of vertebral fractures was almost 5 times higher in the discontinuation group.

Continue to: Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use...

Atypical femur fracture risk and bisphosphonate use

Black DM, Geiger EJ, Eastell R, et al. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:743-753.

Since their introduction in the 1990s, bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment. This category of medications inhibits osteoclast-mediated resorption and remodeling of bone. Various large, randomized, controlled trials have established the efficacy of bisphosphonates to increase BMD and decrease the risk of hip and vertebral fracture by as much as 40% to 70%.¹³

However, case reports of unusual fragility fractures in the subtrochanteric region and along the femoral diaphysis in patients treated with bisphosphonates started to appear approximately 15 years ago.¹⁴ Since then, concerns and publicity about these atypical fractures have led to substantial declines in bisphosphonate use clinically.

Bisphosphonate preventive benefits versus atypical fracture risk

Black and colleagues reviewed data on women 50 years and older who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system in California. The total cohort included slightly more than 1 million women, of which almost 200,000 (17.9%) used bisphosphonates at any point from 2007–2017.

A total of 277 atypical femur fractures occurred. Among bisphosphonate users, there were 1.74 fractures per 10,000 patient-years. Overall, there were almost 59 fractures per 10,000 person-years. The incidence of atypical fractures was highest in women between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and the incidence diminished after age 85. Rates of atypical fractures increased as the duration of bisphosphonate use increased. In addition, rates of atypical fractures decreased with time since bisphosphonate discontinuation.

The rate of atypical fractures in women who had never received bisphosphonate therapy was 0.1 per 10,000 person-years. The number of fractures prevented for each fracture type far outweighed bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures at all time points along the 10 years of study. In White women, for instance, at 3 years there were 541 clinical fractures prevented and 149 hip fractures prevented, while 2 bisphosphonate-associated atypical fractures occurred, all per 10,000 women.

Interestingly, in the Asian population at the same time point, 330 clinical fractures were prevented and 91 hip fractures were prevented, but 8 atypical fractures of the femur occurred, per 10,000 women. The authors further referenced an earlier Kaiser study that showed that 49% of 142 atypical femur fractures occurred in Asian patients who comprised only 10% of the study population.¹⁵

The authors concluded that the risk of atypical femur fracture increases with longer duration of bisphosphate use and rapidly decreases after bisphosphate discontinuation. Asian women have a higher risk than White women. With bisphosphonate treatment, the absolute risk of atypical femur fracture is very low compared with the reduction in the risk of hip and other fractures.

Continue to: Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores...

Romosozumab increases BMD gains and improves T-scores

Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Ebeling PR, et al. T-score as an indicator of fracture risk during treatment with romosozumab or alendronate in the ARCH trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35:1333-1342

Romosozumab (Evenity) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thus having the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.¹⁶ It is administered for 1 year as monthly doses of 210 mg subcutaneously. Previous studies have shown that romosozumab produces large increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD,¹⁷ reduces the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures compared with placebo,¹⁶ and reduces the risk of vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures compared with alendronate over a median treatment period of 33 months (the ARCH study).¹⁸

According to the package insert, romosozumab is indicated “for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture, defined as a history of osteoporotic fracture, or multiple risk factors for fracture; or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.”

Should T-score be a therapeutic target?

Cosman and colleagues performed a post hoc analysis of the ARCH trial specifically to evaluate mean BMD and corresponding mean T-score changes (and the relationships between T-scores) after 1 year of romosozumab or alendronate therapy and subsequent fracture incidence. The study is quite detailed with much numerical data and statistical analysis.

Basically, the ARCH trial randomly assigned patients with osteoporosis to receive either monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months. After the double-blind portion of the trial, all patients received open label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg through the end of study (24 months), although they were still blinded to the initial treatment assignment. In addition, patients received daily calcium and vitamin D supplements.

The data analysis found that 1 year of romosozumab led to larger BMD gains than alendronate therapy. Also, the T-score achieved with either therapy was directly related to subsequent fracture risk. The authors thus proposed that these data support the use of the T-score as a therapeutic target for patients with osteoporosis.

It is important to note that in the original ARCH study, the participants’ average age was 71 years and approximately one-third were older than 75. The average T-score was -2.7 at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Approximately 20% of patients had a pre-existing vertebral fracture, and approximately 20% had a previous nonvertebral fracture.

The authors of the current study, furthermore, found that mean BMD gains after 1 year of romosozumab treatment were more than twice those seen with alendronate at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. These BMD changes resulted in a larger proportion of patients who achieved T-scores above the osteoporosis level at each of the skeletal sites after 1 year of therapy. Fewer fractures occurred during the second year and the entire open label period among patients who had received romosozumab first compared with those who received alendronate.●