MDedge ObGyn

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

Although the efficacy of two pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens containing differing prodrug formulations of tenofovir are virtually identical, the balance between benefit and risk tips in favor of the combination using the older formulation, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a pharmacology researcher said.

An analysis of the pharmacologic profiles of TDF plus emtricitabine (FTC; Truvada and generic) with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) plus FTC (Descovy) shows that the risk of decreased bone mineral density and renal toxicity with TDF are significantly lower than those of weight gain and related metabolic and cardiovascular problems associated with the newer tenofovir formulation TAF, according to pharmacology research fellow Andrew Hill, MD, PhD, from the University of Liverpool (England).

“I think when we’re comparing these two drugs overall, we have a clear benefit/risk, and we need to take both of these potential toxicities seriously, “ he said in an online presentation during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases held virtually this year.

“But in my view, treating women – Black women – with TAF/FTC is a bad thing,” he continued. “I think it’s going lead to more harm, more myocardial infarctions, more cases of diabetes, and potentially more adverse birth outcomes, and I think that is a risk that is not worth taking, given that the apparent benefit in terms of bone mineral density and renal markers is a hypothesis at best, and is not translated into hard clinical endpoints.”
 

Adverse event profiles

Dr. Hill compared the side effect profiles of the two agents when used both in antiretroviral therapy (ART) in combination the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG; Tivicay), and in PrEP.

World Health Organization guidelines for first-line ART recommend the use of TDF/FTC/DTG, reserving TAF plus lamivudine (3TC) and DTG for use in special circumstances only, Dr. Hill noted.

He pointed to a pooled analysis of data from eight randomized, controlled trials of treatment-naive people living with HIV who started on ART from 2003 to 2015. The authors found that demographic factors associated with weight gain included lower CD4 cell counter, higher levels of HIV type 1 RNA, no injection drug use, female sex, and Black race.

They also found that, among nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, TAF was associated with more weight gain than TDF, abacavir, or zidovudine.

“This pattern is seen consistently across studies both of pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment comparing tenofovir with either TAF or other nucleoside analogs,” he said.

The greater weight gain with TAF versus TDF was seen in both treatment trials and in the DISCOVER PrEP trial.

In addition, in a crossover trial conducted in Germany, patients who switched from TDF to TAF had an approximately 2 kg increase in body weight.

TAF has also been associated with higher grade 3 or 4 glucose and LDL cholesterol than TDF in clinical trials for the treatment of hepatitis B infections, and with higher LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels as well as diabetes in patients treated with the drugs in combination in the EMERALD HIV trial.

Clinical trials also tend to underestimate the real-world population of persons at highest risk for adverse events from TAF, Dr. Hill said, noting that the percentage of Black women in phase 3 trials for dolutegravir was 9%, compared with 42% among persons infected with HIV worldwide. The respective percentages for Black men are 16% versus 30%. These differences are similar across clinical trial programs for other ART agents.

“Generally, it’s women and Black people who seem to be at greatest risk for safety issues,” he said.

In the ADVANCE trial comparing TAF/FTC/DTG with TDF/FTC/DTG and a control arm of TDF, FTC and efavirenz, the mean change in weight among men after 3 years on the TAF-based regimen was a gain of 7.2 kg (15.9 lbs), compared with 5.5 kg (12 lbs) with TDF, and 2.6 kg (5.7 lbs) with the efavirenz-containing regimen.

In women enrolled in the same trial, the respective mean weight gains were 12.3 kg (27 lbs), 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), and 5.5 kg (12 lbs).

“All of our analyses so far have shown that the weight continues to go up. We’re actually seeing people doubling in their body weight. We’ve seen some women come into clinic and their doctors don’t even recognize them because they’ve put on so much weight,” he said.

In women, most of the gain in weight occurs as limb or trunk fat, with a predominance of visceral fat.

People taking TAF in the trial were also at significantly greater risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, and at week 96, 27% of women on TAF/FTC/DTG had treatment-emergent obesity, compared with 17% for those on TDF/FTC/DTG and 11% for those on TDF/FTC/EFV. In men, the respective 96-week rates of treatment-emergent obesity were 7%, 3%, and 2%.

Clinical obesity itself is a risk factor for obstetric complications and birth outcomes, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer, and an average 4-year reduction in life expectancy, Dr. Hill said. “I think it’s actually very unlikely that the [World Health Organization] guidelines will now change and allow the widespread use of TAF/FTC in combination with integrase inhibitors worldwide given these potential implications.”
 

Modern times

The bad rap that TDF gets for its alleged effects on bone mineral density and kidneys comes from studies where the drug was given in a boosted regimen that can amplify tenofovir toxicities, Dr. Hill said.

He noted that data from Gilead Sciences shows through 7 years of therapy in previously ART-naive patients, the combination of TDF/3TC/EFV showed sustained durable efficacy, no discontinuations to renal adverse effects, and no evidence of clinically relevant bone effects.

“I think we need to be very careful when we look at tenofovir and TAF. We need to look at the more modern way that these drugs are used, which is not with pharmacokinetic boosters anymore, and in that situation the toxicity profile of tenofovir/3TC – the original TDF – is very favorable,” he said.

Robert Goldstein, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist and medical director of the transgender health program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who comoderated the session where Dr. Hill presented his data, said that his clinical experience mirrors the pharmacokinetic findings.

“I certainly have strong feelings about the use of TDF in pre-exposure prophylaxis,” he said in an interview. “TDF is an effective and safe formulation of tenofovir to be used in pre-exposure prophylaxis, and one that we have more experience with. It’s the formulation of tenofovir that I use for all of my patients who are on pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I think it is the most cost-effective.’

No funding source was reported. Andrew Hill consults for Tibotec on clinical trial programs for darunavir, etravirine, and rilpivirine. Dr. Goldstein reported having no relevant disclosures.

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on every aspect of physicians’ medical practice, incomes, and business. Although this will probably not end soon, there are some key tax strategies that can help your financial position if you take some important actions by the end of the year.

Some of the ways in which physicians were hard hit include:

• Physicians who are self-employed are facing increased costs for personal protective equipment, cleaning protocols, and new telehealth infrastructure. Many are also facing staffing shortages as employees fall to part-time work or take time off work to care for family members.
• Even physicians working for large hospitals are not isolated from the financial impact of the virus. A recent survey conducted by Medscape concluded that over 60% of physicians in the United States have experienced a decrease in income since the start of the pandemic.
• Saving and investing have been affected: Physicians may expect to see that companies in which they are invested are cutting dividends. Interest rates (CDs, bonds) are lower, and capital gains distributions are reduced this year. Overall, that makes for a fairly grim financial picture.

While taxable income this year has mostly declined, the applicable tax rates overall are low. However, federal, state, and local budget deficits have been skyrocketing owing to the demands of the pandemic. That means, in all likelihood, there will be tax increases in the coming years to cover spending. However, this year’s financial challenges could lend themselves to a unique tax planning scenario that could potentially benefit physicians as they make long-term plans for their investments.

Given these circumstances, these 12 tips can help you to lessen your tax bite this tax season. Many of these tips entail actions that you need to take before Dec. 31, 2020.
 

1. Coronavirus stimulus rebates

If you have significantly depressed income this year or have lost your job, you may find that you qualify for an Economic Impact Payment, a refundable tax credit on the 2020 tax return. The credit is $1,200 for individuals or $2,400 for joint filers, plus an additional $500 for each qualifying child aged 16 years or younger. You begin to phase out of the credit at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. People who had AGI below these thresholds in 2019 already would have received the credit in advance, but those who now find themselves qualifying will receive the credit when they file their 2020 tax return. No action is needed on your part; your tax preparer will calculate whether you are eligible for the credit when filing your return.

2. Look to accelerate income at lower brackets

With reduced earned income, many physicians will find themselves in significantly lower tax brackets this year. Once you fall below $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for joint filers, you no longer trigger two additional surcharge taxes. The first is the additional Medicare tax, which is a further 0.9% applied to earned income above those thresholds, on top of ordinary income tax brackets. The second is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which is an additional 3.8% applied to your investment income on top of capital gains tax brackets.

If you are someone to whom the additional Medicare tax or NIIT no longer applies for 2020, you might consider generating income this year in order to realize the lower tax rates. You could consider selling highly appreciated investments in your taxable portfolio and reinvest the proceeds by repurchasing the same securities, thereby receiving a step-up in cost basis. Remember, when you go to sell securities in retirement, you are only taxed on the gain on the security over your cost basis. By bringing the cost basis up to today’s fair market value, you could be greatly reducing the future tax applied on a sale.

For those with IRA or inherited IRA accounts who also have required minimum distributions (RMDs), you might consider making voluntary withdrawals this year and then reinvesting the proceeds into a savings or taxable account for when you need it. Keep in mind that under the CARES Act, you are no longer required to take RMDs for 2020. However, this action would help avoid being forced to withdraw the amount when you may be at a higher tax bracket. You would need to do this before Dec. 31.
 

3. Build Roth assets strategies

With reduced incomes and lower marginal tax rates applying to the last dollar of income this year, physicians should carefully consider how to take advantage of current tax rates by building Roth assets. There are a few strategies, including switching 401(k) or 457 contributions from pretax to Roth or performing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. However, neither is as powerful as converting IRA assets to Roth assets because there is no restriction on conversion amount or income cutoffs.

The goal is to convert enough assets to fill up lower applicable marginal tax brackets while avoiding tax surcharges, where possible. Roth IRA conversions can get you in trouble if you don’t know what to expect, so it’s best to work with a financial advisor or tax professional to give you guidance. For example, Roth conversions can trigger some tax surprises, such as the phaseout for the 199A qualified business income deduction, increased taxation on your Social Security benefits, or higher Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount surcharges on Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.

Bear in mind that Roth conversions generate taxable income and cannot be undone once completed. However, paying the lower marginal tax rate today may be a big win when RMDs could push physicians into tax brackets as high as or higher than during their working years.
 

4. Coronavirus-related distributions

New this year is a penalty-free way to withdraw qualified retirement plan funds for those who are not yet eligible to make penalty-free withdrawals.

Congress introduced the Coronavirus-Related Distribution under the CARES Act. It allows individuals who have been affected by the pandemic to withdraw up to $100,000 before Dec. 31, 2020, without paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you are considering an early retirement because of the pandemic, it may make sense to take this withdrawal while the option lasts and keep the cash available to help fund the gap before the remainder of your retirement plan assets are available penalty free. Keep in mind that this withdrawal generates taxable ordinary income, even though the early withdrawal penalty does not apply. Taking this withdrawal can boost your taxable income bracket, so calculate carefully before you do this.
 

5. Charitable donations for 2020

There is no shortage of people in need owing to the pandemic. For those who continue to be charitable-minded, a decrease in income may mean you have more opportunity for your regularly recurring charitable donations to decrease your taxes this year. Normally, charitable donations for itemizers are limited to 60% of AGI. However, the CARES Act increased the charitable deduction limit to 100% of AGI for 2020. Even those who claim the standard deduction can take advantage of a new “above-the-line” deduction worth $300 for individuals and $600 for joint filers by making qualified cash donations in 2020. Take special note that the contributions do not apply to donor-advised funds or nonoperating private foundations.

6. Noncash charitable donations

Many physicians are working longer and harder than ever, and for many, that means vacation plans have been placed on hold for the remainder of the year. Don’t let your paid-time-off days go to waste! The IRS now permits leave-based donation programs, which allow employers to make deductible charitable donations for the relief of victims of the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of the value of the sick, vacation, or personal leave that employees voluntarily forgo. The value of the donation will not be treated as compensation for the employee and will be free of any otherwise applicable Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, and the employer can deduct the donation as ordinary and necessary business expenses if they meet certain requirements.

7. Claiming 2020 losses on prior tax returns

For self-employed physicians, a wealth of tax planning strategies are available. One of the most significant may be the new provisions under the CARES Act that allow 100% of net operating losses (NOLs) for 3 calendar years of losses – namely 2018, 2019, and 2020 – to be carried back to the prior 5 tax years. Using these NOLs, you may be able to claim a refund for tax returns from prior tax years when there was otherwise a limit on NOLs at 80% of taxable income. If you think this applies to you, it’s wise to meet with your accountant or financial professional to discuss this.

8. Delay payroll taxes where possible

For physicians with employees looking for some cash flow relief, a new payroll tax deferral is available to you this year. Under the CARES Act, employers can delay payment of their 2020 employer payroll tax, namely the 6.2% Social Security tax, with 50% not due until Dec. 31, 2021, and the remainder due Dec. 31, 2022. The deferral will not incur any interest or penalties and is also available to those who are self-employed.

On top of that, a new payroll tax credit was created under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Eligible employers can receive this tax credit for the amount of wages they pay to eligible employees who are taking pandemic-related paid family leave or paid sick leave this year. The credit is also available to those who are self-employed. If you think this credit may be applicable to you, it’s worth speaking with your tax preparer about it.
 

9. Increased business property deductions

The nature of many physician business operations has drastically changed this year. For physicians who already have invested in and implemented new telehealth infrastructure, this can create valuable tax deductions to offset their ordinary income. Businesses may take 100% bonus depreciation on the cost of qualified property both acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. In general, during the last quarter of the year, you should look to decelerate business purchases until after Jan. 1, 2021, to get a deduction in 2021 at a higher marginal tax bracket.

10. Switch to cash accounting instead of accrual accounting

With higher expenses and lower profits, some large practice groups may take a second look to see whether they qualify to switch to cash accounting from accrual accounting to defer taxes. This rule change was adopted back in 2017 to allow small-business taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less in the prior 3 years to use the cash method of accounting. Ultimately, this switch should allow practices to owe the IRS money only after invoices were paid.

11. Physicians looking to sell their unprofitable practices

For physicians looking to make a quick exit from their practice in response to the pandemic, there is some tax relief in the event of a sale at a loss. Certain business owners who sell failed businesses will be able to use up to $50,000 of net losses as individuals or $100,000 as joint filers from the sale to offset ordinary income, current or future, under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1244. Remember that ordinary income tax rates are much higher than capital gains rates, so you could see some tax relief through a sale. The provision covers shareholders of domestic small-business corporations, both C or S corporations, but not partnerships. You would have to sell the business before Dec. 31 to get this deduction in 2020.

12. Physicians looking to sell their profitable practices

Even self-employed physicians who have managed to maintain profitable practices may be looking for early retirement after the exhaustion of the pandemic. If you own stock in a C corporation engaged in an active trade or business that has not had assets of more than $50 million at any time, you can take advantage of the IRC Section 1202 exemption. Section 1202 provides an exclusion from gain from the sale of stock of either $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the stock, owned at least 5 years, in corporations regarded as “qualified small businesses.” This means you may be able to sell your practice at a gain with a handsome tax shield. Again, to get this tax benefit for April’s tax return, you’d have to engage in this activity before year end.

Regardless of whether the pandemic has placed financial constraints on you this year, tax-savvy opportunities are available to capitalize on your reduced income and lower tax rates. It’s always important to keep in mind not just your taxes in any one given year, but your lifetime tax obligations. Financial advisors and tax planners can perform multiyear tax calculations and recommend ways to manage your tax bracket and help lower your overall lifetime tax obligations.
 

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

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on every aspect of physicians’ medical practice, incomes, and business. Although this will probably not end soon, there are some key tax strategies that can help your financial position if you take some important actions by the end of the year.

Some of the ways in which physicians were hard hit include:

• Physicians who are self-employed are facing increased costs for personal protective equipment, cleaning protocols, and new telehealth infrastructure. Many are also facing staffing shortages as employees fall to part-time work or take time off work to care for family members.
• Even physicians working for large hospitals are not isolated from the financial impact of the virus. A recent survey conducted by Medscape concluded that over 60% of physicians in the United States have experienced a decrease in income since the start of the pandemic.
• Saving and investing have been affected: Physicians may expect to see that companies in which they are invested are cutting dividends. Interest rates (CDs, bonds) are lower, and capital gains distributions are reduced this year. Overall, that makes for a fairly grim financial picture.

While taxable income this year has mostly declined, the applicable tax rates overall are low. However, federal, state, and local budget deficits have been skyrocketing owing to the demands of the pandemic. That means, in all likelihood, there will be tax increases in the coming years to cover spending. However, this year’s financial challenges could lend themselves to a unique tax planning scenario that could potentially benefit physicians as they make long-term plans for their investments.

Given these circumstances, these 12 tips can help you to lessen your tax bite this tax season. Many of these tips entail actions that you need to take before Dec. 31, 2020.
 

1. Coronavirus stimulus rebates

If you have significantly depressed income this year or have lost your job, you may find that you qualify for an Economic Impact Payment, a refundable tax credit on the 2020 tax return. The credit is $1,200 for individuals or $2,400 for joint filers, plus an additional $500 for each qualifying child aged 16 years or younger. You begin to phase out of the credit at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. People who had AGI below these thresholds in 2019 already would have received the credit in advance, but those who now find themselves qualifying will receive the credit when they file their 2020 tax return. No action is needed on your part; your tax preparer will calculate whether you are eligible for the credit when filing your return.

2. Look to accelerate income at lower brackets

With reduced earned income, many physicians will find themselves in significantly lower tax brackets this year. Once you fall below $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for joint filers, you no longer trigger two additional surcharge taxes. The first is the additional Medicare tax, which is a further 0.9% applied to earned income above those thresholds, on top of ordinary income tax brackets. The second is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which is an additional 3.8% applied to your investment income on top of capital gains tax brackets.

If you are someone to whom the additional Medicare tax or NIIT no longer applies for 2020, you might consider generating income this year in order to realize the lower tax rates. You could consider selling highly appreciated investments in your taxable portfolio and reinvest the proceeds by repurchasing the same securities, thereby receiving a step-up in cost basis. Remember, when you go to sell securities in retirement, you are only taxed on the gain on the security over your cost basis. By bringing the cost basis up to today’s fair market value, you could be greatly reducing the future tax applied on a sale.

For those with IRA or inherited IRA accounts who also have required minimum distributions (RMDs), you might consider making voluntary withdrawals this year and then reinvesting the proceeds into a savings or taxable account for when you need it. Keep in mind that under the CARES Act, you are no longer required to take RMDs for 2020. However, this action would help avoid being forced to withdraw the amount when you may be at a higher tax bracket. You would need to do this before Dec. 31.
 

3. Build Roth assets strategies

With reduced incomes and lower marginal tax rates applying to the last dollar of income this year, physicians should carefully consider how to take advantage of current tax rates by building Roth assets. There are a few strategies, including switching 401(k) or 457 contributions from pretax to Roth or performing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. However, neither is as powerful as converting IRA assets to Roth assets because there is no restriction on conversion amount or income cutoffs.

The goal is to convert enough assets to fill up lower applicable marginal tax brackets while avoiding tax surcharges, where possible. Roth IRA conversions can get you in trouble if you don’t know what to expect, so it’s best to work with a financial advisor or tax professional to give you guidance. For example, Roth conversions can trigger some tax surprises, such as the phaseout for the 199A qualified business income deduction, increased taxation on your Social Security benefits, or higher Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount surcharges on Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.

Bear in mind that Roth conversions generate taxable income and cannot be undone once completed. However, paying the lower marginal tax rate today may be a big win when RMDs could push physicians into tax brackets as high as or higher than during their working years.
 

4. Coronavirus-related distributions

New this year is a penalty-free way to withdraw qualified retirement plan funds for those who are not yet eligible to make penalty-free withdrawals.

Congress introduced the Coronavirus-Related Distribution under the CARES Act. It allows individuals who have been affected by the pandemic to withdraw up to $100,000 before Dec. 31, 2020, without paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you are considering an early retirement because of the pandemic, it may make sense to take this withdrawal while the option lasts and keep the cash available to help fund the gap before the remainder of your retirement plan assets are available penalty free. Keep in mind that this withdrawal generates taxable ordinary income, even though the early withdrawal penalty does not apply. Taking this withdrawal can boost your taxable income bracket, so calculate carefully before you do this.
 

5. Charitable donations for 2020

There is no shortage of people in need owing to the pandemic. For those who continue to be charitable-minded, a decrease in income may mean you have more opportunity for your regularly recurring charitable donations to decrease your taxes this year. Normally, charitable donations for itemizers are limited to 60% of AGI. However, the CARES Act increased the charitable deduction limit to 100% of AGI for 2020. Even those who claim the standard deduction can take advantage of a new “above-the-line” deduction worth $300 for individuals and $600 for joint filers by making qualified cash donations in 2020. Take special note that the contributions do not apply to donor-advised funds or nonoperating private foundations.

6. Noncash charitable donations

Many physicians are working longer and harder than ever, and for many, that means vacation plans have been placed on hold for the remainder of the year. Don’t let your paid-time-off days go to waste! The IRS now permits leave-based donation programs, which allow employers to make deductible charitable donations for the relief of victims of the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of the value of the sick, vacation, or personal leave that employees voluntarily forgo. The value of the donation will not be treated as compensation for the employee and will be free of any otherwise applicable Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, and the employer can deduct the donation as ordinary and necessary business expenses if they meet certain requirements.

7. Claiming 2020 losses on prior tax returns

For self-employed physicians, a wealth of tax planning strategies are available. One of the most significant may be the new provisions under the CARES Act that allow 100% of net operating losses (NOLs) for 3 calendar years of losses – namely 2018, 2019, and 2020 – to be carried back to the prior 5 tax years. Using these NOLs, you may be able to claim a refund for tax returns from prior tax years when there was otherwise a limit on NOLs at 80% of taxable income. If you think this applies to you, it’s wise to meet with your accountant or financial professional to discuss this.

8. Delay payroll taxes where possible

For physicians with employees looking for some cash flow relief, a new payroll tax deferral is available to you this year. Under the CARES Act, employers can delay payment of their 2020 employer payroll tax, namely the 6.2% Social Security tax, with 50% not due until Dec. 31, 2021, and the remainder due Dec. 31, 2022. The deferral will not incur any interest or penalties and is also available to those who are self-employed.

On top of that, a new payroll tax credit was created under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Eligible employers can receive this tax credit for the amount of wages they pay to eligible employees who are taking pandemic-related paid family leave or paid sick leave this year. The credit is also available to those who are self-employed. If you think this credit may be applicable to you, it’s worth speaking with your tax preparer about it.
 

9. Increased business property deductions

The nature of many physician business operations has drastically changed this year. For physicians who already have invested in and implemented new telehealth infrastructure, this can create valuable tax deductions to offset their ordinary income. Businesses may take 100% bonus depreciation on the cost of qualified property both acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. In general, during the last quarter of the year, you should look to decelerate business purchases until after Jan. 1, 2021, to get a deduction in 2021 at a higher marginal tax bracket.

10. Switch to cash accounting instead of accrual accounting

With higher expenses and lower profits, some large practice groups may take a second look to see whether they qualify to switch to cash accounting from accrual accounting to defer taxes. This rule change was adopted back in 2017 to allow small-business taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less in the prior 3 years to use the cash method of accounting. Ultimately, this switch should allow practices to owe the IRS money only after invoices were paid.

11. Physicians looking to sell their unprofitable practices

For physicians looking to make a quick exit from their practice in response to the pandemic, there is some tax relief in the event of a sale at a loss. Certain business owners who sell failed businesses will be able to use up to $50,000 of net losses as individuals or $100,000 as joint filers from the sale to offset ordinary income, current or future, under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1244. Remember that ordinary income tax rates are much higher than capital gains rates, so you could see some tax relief through a sale. The provision covers shareholders of domestic small-business corporations, both C or S corporations, but not partnerships. You would have to sell the business before Dec. 31 to get this deduction in 2020.

12. Physicians looking to sell their profitable practices

Even self-employed physicians who have managed to maintain profitable practices may be looking for early retirement after the exhaustion of the pandemic. If you own stock in a C corporation engaged in an active trade or business that has not had assets of more than $50 million at any time, you can take advantage of the IRC Section 1202 exemption. Section 1202 provides an exclusion from gain from the sale of stock of either $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the stock, owned at least 5 years, in corporations regarded as “qualified small businesses.” This means you may be able to sell your practice at a gain with a handsome tax shield. Again, to get this tax benefit for April’s tax return, you’d have to engage in this activity before year end.

Regardless of whether the pandemic has placed financial constraints on you this year, tax-savvy opportunities are available to capitalize on your reduced income and lower tax rates. It’s always important to keep in mind not just your taxes in any one given year, but your lifetime tax obligations. Financial advisors and tax planners can perform multiyear tax calculations and recommend ways to manage your tax bracket and help lower your overall lifetime tax obligations.
 

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

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on every aspect of physicians’ medical practice, incomes, and business. Although this will probably not end soon, there are some key tax strategies that can help your financial position if you take some important actions by the end of the year.

Some of the ways in which physicians were hard hit include:

• Physicians who are self-employed are facing increased costs for personal protective equipment, cleaning protocols, and new telehealth infrastructure. Many are also facing staffing shortages as employees fall to part-time work or take time off work to care for family members.
• Even physicians working for large hospitals are not isolated from the financial impact of the virus. A recent survey conducted by Medscape concluded that over 60% of physicians in the United States have experienced a decrease in income since the start of the pandemic.
• Saving and investing have been affected: Physicians may expect to see that companies in which they are invested are cutting dividends. Interest rates (CDs, bonds) are lower, and capital gains distributions are reduced this year. Overall, that makes for a fairly grim financial picture.

While taxable income this year has mostly declined, the applicable tax rates overall are low. However, federal, state, and local budget deficits have been skyrocketing owing to the demands of the pandemic. That means, in all likelihood, there will be tax increases in the coming years to cover spending. However, this year’s financial challenges could lend themselves to a unique tax planning scenario that could potentially benefit physicians as they make long-term plans for their investments.

Given these circumstances, these 12 tips can help you to lessen your tax bite this tax season. Many of these tips entail actions that you need to take before Dec. 31, 2020.
 

1. Coronavirus stimulus rebates

If you have significantly depressed income this year or have lost your job, you may find that you qualify for an Economic Impact Payment, a refundable tax credit on the 2020 tax return. The credit is $1,200 for individuals or $2,400 for joint filers, plus an additional $500 for each qualifying child aged 16 years or younger. You begin to phase out of the credit at an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. People who had AGI below these thresholds in 2019 already would have received the credit in advance, but those who now find themselves qualifying will receive the credit when they file their 2020 tax return. No action is needed on your part; your tax preparer will calculate whether you are eligible for the credit when filing your return.

2. Look to accelerate income at lower brackets

With reduced earned income, many physicians will find themselves in significantly lower tax brackets this year. Once you fall below $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for joint filers, you no longer trigger two additional surcharge taxes. The first is the additional Medicare tax, which is a further 0.9% applied to earned income above those thresholds, on top of ordinary income tax brackets. The second is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which is an additional 3.8% applied to your investment income on top of capital gains tax brackets.

If you are someone to whom the additional Medicare tax or NIIT no longer applies for 2020, you might consider generating income this year in order to realize the lower tax rates. You could consider selling highly appreciated investments in your taxable portfolio and reinvest the proceeds by repurchasing the same securities, thereby receiving a step-up in cost basis. Remember, when you go to sell securities in retirement, you are only taxed on the gain on the security over your cost basis. By bringing the cost basis up to today’s fair market value, you could be greatly reducing the future tax applied on a sale.

For those with IRA or inherited IRA accounts who also have required minimum distributions (RMDs), you might consider making voluntary withdrawals this year and then reinvesting the proceeds into a savings or taxable account for when you need it. Keep in mind that under the CARES Act, you are no longer required to take RMDs for 2020. However, this action would help avoid being forced to withdraw the amount when you may be at a higher tax bracket. You would need to do this before Dec. 31.
 

3. Build Roth assets strategies

With reduced incomes and lower marginal tax rates applying to the last dollar of income this year, physicians should carefully consider how to take advantage of current tax rates by building Roth assets. There are a few strategies, including switching 401(k) or 457 contributions from pretax to Roth or performing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. However, neither is as powerful as converting IRA assets to Roth assets because there is no restriction on conversion amount or income cutoffs.

The goal is to convert enough assets to fill up lower applicable marginal tax brackets while avoiding tax surcharges, where possible. Roth IRA conversions can get you in trouble if you don’t know what to expect, so it’s best to work with a financial advisor or tax professional to give you guidance. For example, Roth conversions can trigger some tax surprises, such as the phaseout for the 199A qualified business income deduction, increased taxation on your Social Security benefits, or higher Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount surcharges on Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.

Bear in mind that Roth conversions generate taxable income and cannot be undone once completed. However, paying the lower marginal tax rate today may be a big win when RMDs could push physicians into tax brackets as high as or higher than during their working years.
 

4. Coronavirus-related distributions

New this year is a penalty-free way to withdraw qualified retirement plan funds for those who are not yet eligible to make penalty-free withdrawals.

Congress introduced the Coronavirus-Related Distribution under the CARES Act. It allows individuals who have been affected by the pandemic to withdraw up to $100,000 before Dec. 31, 2020, without paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you are considering an early retirement because of the pandemic, it may make sense to take this withdrawal while the option lasts and keep the cash available to help fund the gap before the remainder of your retirement plan assets are available penalty free. Keep in mind that this withdrawal generates taxable ordinary income, even though the early withdrawal penalty does not apply. Taking this withdrawal can boost your taxable income bracket, so calculate carefully before you do this.
 

5. Charitable donations for 2020

There is no shortage of people in need owing to the pandemic. For those who continue to be charitable-minded, a decrease in income may mean you have more opportunity for your regularly recurring charitable donations to decrease your taxes this year. Normally, charitable donations for itemizers are limited to 60% of AGI. However, the CARES Act increased the charitable deduction limit to 100% of AGI for 2020. Even those who claim the standard deduction can take advantage of a new “above-the-line” deduction worth $300 for individuals and $600 for joint filers by making qualified cash donations in 2020. Take special note that the contributions do not apply to donor-advised funds or nonoperating private foundations.

6. Noncash charitable donations

Many physicians are working longer and harder than ever, and for many, that means vacation plans have been placed on hold for the remainder of the year. Don’t let your paid-time-off days go to waste! The IRS now permits leave-based donation programs, which allow employers to make deductible charitable donations for the relief of victims of the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of the value of the sick, vacation, or personal leave that employees voluntarily forgo. The value of the donation will not be treated as compensation for the employee and will be free of any otherwise applicable Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, and the employer can deduct the donation as ordinary and necessary business expenses if they meet certain requirements.

7. Claiming 2020 losses on prior tax returns

For self-employed physicians, a wealth of tax planning strategies are available. One of the most significant may be the new provisions under the CARES Act that allow 100% of net operating losses (NOLs) for 3 calendar years of losses – namely 2018, 2019, and 2020 – to be carried back to the prior 5 tax years. Using these NOLs, you may be able to claim a refund for tax returns from prior tax years when there was otherwise a limit on NOLs at 80% of taxable income. If you think this applies to you, it’s wise to meet with your accountant or financial professional to discuss this.

8. Delay payroll taxes where possible

For physicians with employees looking for some cash flow relief, a new payroll tax deferral is available to you this year. Under the CARES Act, employers can delay payment of their 2020 employer payroll tax, namely the 6.2% Social Security tax, with 50% not due until Dec. 31, 2021, and the remainder due Dec. 31, 2022. The deferral will not incur any interest or penalties and is also available to those who are self-employed.

On top of that, a new payroll tax credit was created under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Eligible employers can receive this tax credit for the amount of wages they pay to eligible employees who are taking pandemic-related paid family leave or paid sick leave this year. The credit is also available to those who are self-employed. If you think this credit may be applicable to you, it’s worth speaking with your tax preparer about it.
 

9. Increased business property deductions

The nature of many physician business operations has drastically changed this year. For physicians who already have invested in and implemented new telehealth infrastructure, this can create valuable tax deductions to offset their ordinary income. Businesses may take 100% bonus depreciation on the cost of qualified property both acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023. In general, during the last quarter of the year, you should look to decelerate business purchases until after Jan. 1, 2021, to get a deduction in 2021 at a higher marginal tax bracket.

10. Switch to cash accounting instead of accrual accounting

With higher expenses and lower profits, some large practice groups may take a second look to see whether they qualify to switch to cash accounting from accrual accounting to defer taxes. This rule change was adopted back in 2017 to allow small-business taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less in the prior 3 years to use the cash method of accounting. Ultimately, this switch should allow practices to owe the IRS money only after invoices were paid.

11. Physicians looking to sell their unprofitable practices

For physicians looking to make a quick exit from their practice in response to the pandemic, there is some tax relief in the event of a sale at a loss. Certain business owners who sell failed businesses will be able to use up to $50,000 of net losses as individuals or $100,000 as joint filers from the sale to offset ordinary income, current or future, under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1244. Remember that ordinary income tax rates are much higher than capital gains rates, so you could see some tax relief through a sale. The provision covers shareholders of domestic small-business corporations, both C or S corporations, but not partnerships. You would have to sell the business before Dec. 31 to get this deduction in 2020.

12. Physicians looking to sell their profitable practices

Even self-employed physicians who have managed to maintain profitable practices may be looking for early retirement after the exhaustion of the pandemic. If you own stock in a C corporation engaged in an active trade or business that has not had assets of more than $50 million at any time, you can take advantage of the IRC Section 1202 exemption. Section 1202 provides an exclusion from gain from the sale of stock of either $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the stock, owned at least 5 years, in corporations regarded as “qualified small businesses.” This means you may be able to sell your practice at a gain with a handsome tax shield. Again, to get this tax benefit for April’s tax return, you’d have to engage in this activity before year end.

Regardless of whether the pandemic has placed financial constraints on you this year, tax-savvy opportunities are available to capitalize on your reduced income and lower tax rates. It’s always important to keep in mind not just your taxes in any one given year, but your lifetime tax obligations. Financial advisors and tax planners can perform multiyear tax calculations and recommend ways to manage your tax bracket and help lower your overall lifetime tax obligations.
 

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

A new scoring system can predict whether COVID-19 patients will require invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers report.

The score uses three variables to predict future risk: heart rate; the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO₂) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂); and a positive troponin I level.

“What excites us is it’s a really benign tool,” said Muhtadi Alnababteh, MD, from the Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. “For the first two variables you only need to look at vital signs, no labs or invasive diagnostics.”

“The third part is a simple lab, which is performed universally and can be done in any hospital,” he told this news organization. “We know that even rural hospitals can do this.”

For their retrospective analysis, Dr. Alnababteh and his colleagues assessed 265 adults with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to a single tertiary care center in March and April. They looked at demographic characteristics, lab results, and clinical and outcome information.

Ultimately, 54 of these patients required invasive mechanical ventilation.

On multiple-regression analysis, the researchers determined that three variables independently predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Existing scores evaluated for COVID-19 outcome prediction

The MuLBSTA score can also be used to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

A retrospective evaluation of 163 patients was presented at CHEST 2020 by Jurgena Tusha, MD, from Wayne State University in Detroit.

Patients who survived their illness had a mean MuLBSTA score of 8.67, whereas patients who died had a mean score of 13.60.

The score “correlated significantly with mortality, ventilator support, and length of stay, which may be used to provide guidance to screen patients and make further clinical decisions,” Dr. Tusha said in a press release.

“Further studies are required to validate this study in larger patient cohorts,” she added.

The three-variable scoring system is easier to use than the MuLBSTA, and more specific, said Dr. Alnababteh.

“The main difference between our study and the MuLBSTA study is that we came up with a novel score for COVID-19 patients,” he said. “Our study score doesn’t require chest x-rays or blood cultures, and the outcome is need for invasive mechanical ventilation, not mortality.”

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

A new scoring system can predict whether COVID-19 patients will require invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers report.

The score uses three variables to predict future risk: heart rate; the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO₂) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂); and a positive troponin I level.

“What excites us is it’s a really benign tool,” said Muhtadi Alnababteh, MD, from the Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. “For the first two variables you only need to look at vital signs, no labs or invasive diagnostics.”

“The third part is a simple lab, which is performed universally and can be done in any hospital,” he told this news organization. “We know that even rural hospitals can do this.”

For their retrospective analysis, Dr. Alnababteh and his colleagues assessed 265 adults with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to a single tertiary care center in March and April. They looked at demographic characteristics, lab results, and clinical and outcome information.

Ultimately, 54 of these patients required invasive mechanical ventilation.

On multiple-regression analysis, the researchers determined that three variables independently predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Existing scores evaluated for COVID-19 outcome prediction

The MuLBSTA score can also be used to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

A retrospective evaluation of 163 patients was presented at CHEST 2020 by Jurgena Tusha, MD, from Wayne State University in Detroit.

Patients who survived their illness had a mean MuLBSTA score of 8.67, whereas patients who died had a mean score of 13.60.

The score “correlated significantly with mortality, ventilator support, and length of stay, which may be used to provide guidance to screen patients and make further clinical decisions,” Dr. Tusha said in a press release.

“Further studies are required to validate this study in larger patient cohorts,” she added.

The three-variable scoring system is easier to use than the MuLBSTA, and more specific, said Dr. Alnababteh.

“The main difference between our study and the MuLBSTA study is that we came up with a novel score for COVID-19 patients,” he said. “Our study score doesn’t require chest x-rays or blood cultures, and the outcome is need for invasive mechanical ventilation, not mortality.”

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

A new scoring system can predict whether COVID-19 patients will require invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers report.

The score uses three variables to predict future risk: heart rate; the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO₂) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂); and a positive troponin I level.

“What excites us is it’s a really benign tool,” said Muhtadi Alnababteh, MD, from the Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. “For the first two variables you only need to look at vital signs, no labs or invasive diagnostics.”

“The third part is a simple lab, which is performed universally and can be done in any hospital,” he told this news organization. “We know that even rural hospitals can do this.”

For their retrospective analysis, Dr. Alnababteh and his colleagues assessed 265 adults with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to a single tertiary care center in March and April. They looked at demographic characteristics, lab results, and clinical and outcome information.

Ultimately, 54 of these patients required invasive mechanical ventilation.

On multiple-regression analysis, the researchers determined that three variables independently predicted the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Existing scores evaluated for COVID-19 outcome prediction

The MuLBSTA score can also be used to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

A retrospective evaluation of 163 patients was presented at CHEST 2020 by Jurgena Tusha, MD, from Wayne State University in Detroit.

Patients who survived their illness had a mean MuLBSTA score of 8.67, whereas patients who died had a mean score of 13.60.

The score “correlated significantly with mortality, ventilator support, and length of stay, which may be used to provide guidance to screen patients and make further clinical decisions,” Dr. Tusha said in a press release.

“Further studies are required to validate this study in larger patient cohorts,” she added.

The three-variable scoring system is easier to use than the MuLBSTA, and more specific, said Dr. Alnababteh.

“The main difference between our study and the MuLBSTA study is that we came up with a novel score for COVID-19 patients,” he said. “Our study score doesn’t require chest x-rays or blood cultures, and the outcome is need for invasive mechanical ventilation, not mortality.”

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

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses clear threats to mental well-being, but an increase in suicide is not inevitable if appropriate action is taken, one expert says.

“Increases in suicide rates should not be a foregone conclusion, even with the negative effects of the pandemic. If the lessons of suicide prevention research are heeded during and after the pandemic, this potential for increased risk could be substantially mitigated,” writes Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in an invited communication in JAMA Psychiatry.

“This is a moment in history when suicide prevention must be prioritized as a serious public health concern,” she writes.

Mitigating suicide risk

Although evidence from the first 6 months of the pandemic reveal specific effects on suicide risk, real-time data on suicide deaths are not available in most regions of the world. From emerging data from several countries, there is no evidence of increased suicide rates during the pandemic thus far, Moutier notes.

Still, a number of pandemic-related risk factors could increase individual and population suicide risk.

They include deterioration or recurrence of serious mental illness; increased isolation, loneliness, and bereavement; increased use of drugs and alcohol; job loss and other financial stressors; and increases in domestic violence.

There are mitigating strategies for each of these “threats to suicide risk.” The science is “very clear,” Moutier told Medscape Medical News.

“Suicide risk is never a situation of inevitability. It’s dynamic, with multiple forces at play in each individual and in the population. Lives can be saved simply by making people feel more connected to each other, that they are part of a larger community,” she added.

The political will

Moutier notes that prior to the pandemic, four countries ― Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia ― had fully implemented national suicide prevention plans and had achieved reductions in their national suicide rates. However, in the United States, the suicide rate has been steadily increasing since 1999.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey released in August 2020 found that 40% of US adults reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, or increased substance use during COVID-19 and that about 11% reported suicidal ideation in the past month, all increases from prior surveys.

COVID-19 presents a “new and urgent opportunity” to focus political will, federal investments, and the global community on suicide prevention, Moutier writes.

“The political will to address suicide has actually moved in the right direction during COVID, as evidenced by a number of pieces of legislation that have suddenly found their way to passing that we’ve been working on for years,” she said in an interview.

One example, she said, is the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, signed into law earlier this month by President Donald Trump.

As previously reported, under the law, beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

Moutier reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many student athletes who test positive for COVID-19 likely can have an uneventful return to their sports after they have rested for 2 weeks in quarantine, doctors suggest.

Canberk Sezer/Getty Images

There are reasons for caution, however, especially when a patient has symptoms that indicate possible cardiac involvement. In these cases, patients should undergo cardiac testing before a physician clears them to return to play, according to guidance from professional associations. Reports of myocarditis in college athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were asymptomatic are among the reasons for concern. Myocarditis may increase the risk of sudden death during exercise.

“The thing that you need to keep in mind is that this is not just a respiratory illness,” David T. Bernhardt, MD, professor of pediatrics, orthopedics, and rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. High school and college athletes have had cardiac, neurologic, hematologic, and renal problems that “can complicate their recovery and their return to sport.”

Still, children who test positive for COVID-19 tend to have mild illness and often are asymptomatic. “It is more than likely going to be safe for the majority of the student athletes who are in the elementary and middle school age to return to sport,” said Dr. Bernhardt. Given that 18-year-old college freshmen have had cardiac complications, there may be reason for more caution with high school students.
 

Limited data

The AAP has released interim guidance on returning to sports and recommends that primary care physicians clear all patients with COVID-19 before they resume training. Physicians should screen for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope.

Those with severe illness should be restricted from exercise and participation for 3-6 months. Primary care physicians, preferably in consultation with pediatric cardiologists, should clear athletes who experience severe illness.

“Most of the recommendations come from the fact that we simply do not know what we do not know with COVID-19,” Susannah Briskin, MD, a coauthor of the interim guidance, said in an interview. “We have to be cautious in returning individuals to play and closely monitor them as we learn more about the disease process and its effect on kids.”

Patients with severe illness could include those who were hospitalized and experienced hypotension or arrhythmias, required intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, had kidney or cardiac failure, or developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), said Dr. Briskin, a specialist in pediatric sports medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“The majority of COVID-19 cases will not present like this in kids. We have no idea how common myocarditis is in kids post infection. We do know that, if anyone has chest pain, shortness of breath, excessive fatigue, syncope [passing out], or arrhythmia [feeling of their heart skipping beats], they should undergo further evaluation for myocarditis,” Dr. Briskin said.

Patients who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms should rest for 14 days after their positive test. After their infectious period has passed, a doctor should assess for any concerning cardiac symptoms. “Anyone with prolonged fever or moderate symptoms should see their pediatrician and have an EKG performed, at a minimum, prior to return to sports,” Dr. Briskin said. “Anyone with an abnormal EKG or concerning signs or symptoms should be referred on to pediatric cardiology for a further assessment.”

Most patients who Dr. Briskin has seen have been asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. “They have done well with a gradual return to physical activity,” she said. “We recommend a gradual return so individuals can be monitored for any signs or symptoms concerning for myocarditis. The far majority of individuals likely have an uneventful return to play.”

Mitigating risk

COVID-19 adds elements of uncertainty and complexity to the usual process of mitigating risk in sports, Dr. Bernhardt noted in his lecture. “You are dealing with an infection that we do not know a lot about,” he said. “And we are trying to mitigate risk not only for the individual who may or may not have underlying health problems, but you are also trying to mitigate risk for anybody else involved with the sport, including athletic trainers and team physicians, coaches, spectators, custodial staff, people working at a snack shack, and all the other people that can be involved in a typical sporting type of atmosphere.”

When patients do return to play after an illness, they should gradually increase the training load to avoid injury. In addition, clinicians should screen for depression and anxiety using tools such as the Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) when they see patients. “The pandemic has been quite stressful for everybody, including our high school student athletes,” Dr. Bernhardt said. “Giving everybody a PHQ-4 when they come into clinic right now probably makes sense in terms of the stress levels that all of us are experiencing.”

If a patient screens positive, take additional history and refer for more in-depth mental health evaluation and treatment if warranted. Sharing breathing and relaxation exercises, promoting healthy behaviors, and paying attention to unhealthy strategies also may help, Dr. Bernhardt suggested.

Ultimately, determining when an athlete with COVID-19 can be medically cleared to return to play may be a challenge. There are limited data on epidemiology and clinical presentations that could help identify cardiac injury related to the disease, Dr. Bernhardt said. Guidance from the American College of Cardiology provides a framework for evaluating athletes for return to play, and pediatric cardiologists have discussed how the guidance relates to a pediatric population. Cardiac assessments may include measures of biomarkers such as troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and sedimentation rate, along with electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac MRI.

Beyond return-to-play decisions, encourage the use of cloth face coverings on the sidelines and away from the playing field, and stress proper quarantining, Dr. Briskin added. Too often, she hears about children not quarantining properly. “Individuals with a known exposure should be quarantined in their house – ideally in a separate room from everyone else. ... When they come out of their room, they should wash their hands well and wear a cloth face covering. They should not be eating with other people.”

Dr. Bernhardt had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Many student athletes who test positive for COVID-19 likely can have an uneventful return to their sports after they have rested for 2 weeks in quarantine, doctors suggest.

Canberk Sezer/Getty Images

There are reasons for caution, however, especially when a patient has symptoms that indicate possible cardiac involvement. In these cases, patients should undergo cardiac testing before a physician clears them to return to play, according to guidance from professional associations. Reports of myocarditis in college athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were asymptomatic are among the reasons for concern. Myocarditis may increase the risk of sudden death during exercise.

“The thing that you need to keep in mind is that this is not just a respiratory illness,” David T. Bernhardt, MD, professor of pediatrics, orthopedics, and rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. High school and college athletes have had cardiac, neurologic, hematologic, and renal problems that “can complicate their recovery and their return to sport.”

Still, children who test positive for COVID-19 tend to have mild illness and often are asymptomatic. “It is more than likely going to be safe for the majority of the student athletes who are in the elementary and middle school age to return to sport,” said Dr. Bernhardt. Given that 18-year-old college freshmen have had cardiac complications, there may be reason for more caution with high school students.
 

Limited data

The AAP has released interim guidance on returning to sports and recommends that primary care physicians clear all patients with COVID-19 before they resume training. Physicians should screen for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope.

Those with severe illness should be restricted from exercise and participation for 3-6 months. Primary care physicians, preferably in consultation with pediatric cardiologists, should clear athletes who experience severe illness.

“Most of the recommendations come from the fact that we simply do not know what we do not know with COVID-19,” Susannah Briskin, MD, a coauthor of the interim guidance, said in an interview. “We have to be cautious in returning individuals to play and closely monitor them as we learn more about the disease process and its effect on kids.”

Patients with severe illness could include those who were hospitalized and experienced hypotension or arrhythmias, required intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, had kidney or cardiac failure, or developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), said Dr. Briskin, a specialist in pediatric sports medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“The majority of COVID-19 cases will not present like this in kids. We have no idea how common myocarditis is in kids post infection. We do know that, if anyone has chest pain, shortness of breath, excessive fatigue, syncope [passing out], or arrhythmia [feeling of their heart skipping beats], they should undergo further evaluation for myocarditis,” Dr. Briskin said.

Patients who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms should rest for 14 days after their positive test. After their infectious period has passed, a doctor should assess for any concerning cardiac symptoms. “Anyone with prolonged fever or moderate symptoms should see their pediatrician and have an EKG performed, at a minimum, prior to return to sports,” Dr. Briskin said. “Anyone with an abnormal EKG or concerning signs or symptoms should be referred on to pediatric cardiology for a further assessment.”

Most patients who Dr. Briskin has seen have been asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. “They have done well with a gradual return to physical activity,” she said. “We recommend a gradual return so individuals can be monitored for any signs or symptoms concerning for myocarditis. The far majority of individuals likely have an uneventful return to play.”

Mitigating risk

COVID-19 adds elements of uncertainty and complexity to the usual process of mitigating risk in sports, Dr. Bernhardt noted in his lecture. “You are dealing with an infection that we do not know a lot about,” he said. “And we are trying to mitigate risk not only for the individual who may or may not have underlying health problems, but you are also trying to mitigate risk for anybody else involved with the sport, including athletic trainers and team physicians, coaches, spectators, custodial staff, people working at a snack shack, and all the other people that can be involved in a typical sporting type of atmosphere.”

When patients do return to play after an illness, they should gradually increase the training load to avoid injury. In addition, clinicians should screen for depression and anxiety using tools such as the Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) when they see patients. “The pandemic has been quite stressful for everybody, including our high school student athletes,” Dr. Bernhardt said. “Giving everybody a PHQ-4 when they come into clinic right now probably makes sense in terms of the stress levels that all of us are experiencing.”

If a patient screens positive, take additional history and refer for more in-depth mental health evaluation and treatment if warranted. Sharing breathing and relaxation exercises, promoting healthy behaviors, and paying attention to unhealthy strategies also may help, Dr. Bernhardt suggested.

Ultimately, determining when an athlete with COVID-19 can be medically cleared to return to play may be a challenge. There are limited data on epidemiology and clinical presentations that could help identify cardiac injury related to the disease, Dr. Bernhardt said. Guidance from the American College of Cardiology provides a framework for evaluating athletes for return to play, and pediatric cardiologists have discussed how the guidance relates to a pediatric population. Cardiac assessments may include measures of biomarkers such as troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and sedimentation rate, along with electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac MRI.

Beyond return-to-play decisions, encourage the use of cloth face coverings on the sidelines and away from the playing field, and stress proper quarantining, Dr. Briskin added. Too often, she hears about children not quarantining properly. “Individuals with a known exposure should be quarantined in their house – ideally in a separate room from everyone else. ... When they come out of their room, they should wash their hands well and wear a cloth face covering. They should not be eating with other people.”

Dr. Bernhardt had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Many student athletes who test positive for COVID-19 likely can have an uneventful return to their sports after they have rested for 2 weeks in quarantine, doctors suggest.

Canberk Sezer/Getty Images

There are reasons for caution, however, especially when a patient has symptoms that indicate possible cardiac involvement. In these cases, patients should undergo cardiac testing before a physician clears them to return to play, according to guidance from professional associations. Reports of myocarditis in college athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were asymptomatic are among the reasons for concern. Myocarditis may increase the risk of sudden death during exercise.

“The thing that you need to keep in mind is that this is not just a respiratory illness,” David T. Bernhardt, MD, professor of pediatrics, orthopedics, and rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. High school and college athletes have had cardiac, neurologic, hematologic, and renal problems that “can complicate their recovery and their return to sport.”

Still, children who test positive for COVID-19 tend to have mild illness and often are asymptomatic. “It is more than likely going to be safe for the majority of the student athletes who are in the elementary and middle school age to return to sport,” said Dr. Bernhardt. Given that 18-year-old college freshmen have had cardiac complications, there may be reason for more caution with high school students.
 

Limited data

The AAP has released interim guidance on returning to sports and recommends that primary care physicians clear all patients with COVID-19 before they resume training. Physicians should screen for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope.

Those with severe illness should be restricted from exercise and participation for 3-6 months. Primary care physicians, preferably in consultation with pediatric cardiologists, should clear athletes who experience severe illness.

“Most of the recommendations come from the fact that we simply do not know what we do not know with COVID-19,” Susannah Briskin, MD, a coauthor of the interim guidance, said in an interview. “We have to be cautious in returning individuals to play and closely monitor them as we learn more about the disease process and its effect on kids.”

Patients with severe illness could include those who were hospitalized and experienced hypotension or arrhythmias, required intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, had kidney or cardiac failure, or developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), said Dr. Briskin, a specialist in pediatric sports medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“The majority of COVID-19 cases will not present like this in kids. We have no idea how common myocarditis is in kids post infection. We do know that, if anyone has chest pain, shortness of breath, excessive fatigue, syncope [passing out], or arrhythmia [feeling of their heart skipping beats], they should undergo further evaluation for myocarditis,” Dr. Briskin said.

Patients who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms should rest for 14 days after their positive test. After their infectious period has passed, a doctor should assess for any concerning cardiac symptoms. “Anyone with prolonged fever or moderate symptoms should see their pediatrician and have an EKG performed, at a minimum, prior to return to sports,” Dr. Briskin said. “Anyone with an abnormal EKG or concerning signs or symptoms should be referred on to pediatric cardiology for a further assessment.”

Most patients who Dr. Briskin has seen have been asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. “They have done well with a gradual return to physical activity,” she said. “We recommend a gradual return so individuals can be monitored for any signs or symptoms concerning for myocarditis. The far majority of individuals likely have an uneventful return to play.”

Mitigating risk

COVID-19 adds elements of uncertainty and complexity to the usual process of mitigating risk in sports, Dr. Bernhardt noted in his lecture. “You are dealing with an infection that we do not know a lot about,” he said. “And we are trying to mitigate risk not only for the individual who may or may not have underlying health problems, but you are also trying to mitigate risk for anybody else involved with the sport, including athletic trainers and team physicians, coaches, spectators, custodial staff, people working at a snack shack, and all the other people that can be involved in a typical sporting type of atmosphere.”

When patients do return to play after an illness, they should gradually increase the training load to avoid injury. In addition, clinicians should screen for depression and anxiety using tools such as the Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) when they see patients. “The pandemic has been quite stressful for everybody, including our high school student athletes,” Dr. Bernhardt said. “Giving everybody a PHQ-4 when they come into clinic right now probably makes sense in terms of the stress levels that all of us are experiencing.”

If a patient screens positive, take additional history and refer for more in-depth mental health evaluation and treatment if warranted. Sharing breathing and relaxation exercises, promoting healthy behaviors, and paying attention to unhealthy strategies also may help, Dr. Bernhardt suggested.

Ultimately, determining when an athlete with COVID-19 can be medically cleared to return to play may be a challenge. There are limited data on epidemiology and clinical presentations that could help identify cardiac injury related to the disease, Dr. Bernhardt said. Guidance from the American College of Cardiology provides a framework for evaluating athletes for return to play, and pediatric cardiologists have discussed how the guidance relates to a pediatric population. Cardiac assessments may include measures of biomarkers such as troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and sedimentation rate, along with electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac MRI.

Beyond return-to-play decisions, encourage the use of cloth face coverings on the sidelines and away from the playing field, and stress proper quarantining, Dr. Briskin added. Too often, she hears about children not quarantining properly. “Individuals with a known exposure should be quarantined in their house – ideally in a separate room from everyone else. ... When they come out of their room, they should wash their hands well and wear a cloth face covering. They should not be eating with other people.”

Dr. Bernhardt had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) before menopause appear to have a greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and other cardiovascular events after menopause, according to findings presented at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2020 Scientific Congress.

“We found a PCOS diagnosis prior to menopause was associated with a 64% increased risk of cardiovascular disease after menopause independent of age at enrollment, race, body mass index, and smoking status,” presenter Jacob Christ, MD, a resident at the University of Washington in Seattle, told attendees. “Taken together, our results suggest that women with PCOS have more risk factors for future cardiovascular disease at baseline, and a present PCOS diagnosis prior to menopause is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease after menopause.”

The results are important to consider in women seeking care related to fertility, according to Amanda N. Kallen, MD, assistant professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Yale Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

“As fertility specialists, we often see women with PCOS visit us when they are having trouble conceiving, but often [they] do not return to our care once they’ve built their family,” said Dr. Kallen, who was not involved in the research.

“This excellent talk emphasized how critical it is for us as reproductive endocrinologists to have ongoing discussions with PCOS patients about long-term cardiovascular risks at every opportunity, and to emphasize that these risks persist long after the reproductive years have ended,” Dr. Kallen said in an interview.
 

Identifying women at higher risk

Characteristics of PCOS in adolescence are already understood, including hyperandrogenism, acne, irregular bleeding, and variable ages of menarche, Dr. Christ explained. Similarly, in women’s reproductive years, PCOS is linked to abnormal uterine bleeding, hirsutism, dyslipidemia, infertility, impaired glucose tolerance, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia.

“What is less clear is if baseline cardiometabolic dysfunction during reproductive years translates into cardiovascular disease after menopause,” Dr. Christ said. “Menopausal changes may reduce risk of cardiovascular disease among PCOS women, as it is known that overall, androgen levels decline during menopause. Furthermore, ovarian aging may be delayed in PCOS women, which may be protective against cardiovascular disease.”

To learn more, the researchers completed a secondary analysis of data from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a prospective cohort study. Women enrolled in the study were aged 42-52 years at baseline, had a uterus and at least one ovary, and menstruated within the previous 3 months. Women were considered to have PCOS if they had both biochemical hyperandrogenism and a history of irregular menses.

The researchers included participants in the secondary analysis if they had complete data on the women’s baseline menstrual status and total testosterone and if the women had at least one follow-up visit after menopause. Menopause was approximated as 51 years old if not otherwise reported (or 1 year after study entry if age 51 at entry). At the follow-up visit, women self-reported any cardiovascular disease events since menopause.

The study’s primary outcome was the first postmenopausal cardiovascular event. These included any of the following: myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident or stroke, angina, percutaneous coronary intervention or angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft, heart failure, carotid artery procedure, peripheral artery disease or lower extremity procedure, renal artery procedure, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Among 1,340 women included in the analysis, 174 (13%) women had PCOS and 1,166 did not. The average age at screening and at menopause were not significantly different between the groups, but they did differ based on other baseline characteristics.

More women with PCOS frequently smoked cigarettes (22%) vs. those without PCOS (12.7%), and women with PCOS had an average body mass index of 31.3, vs. 26.7 among those without PCOS. Women with PCOS also had higher systolic blood pressure (120.7 vs. 115.8 mm Hg), higher total cholesterol (202 vs. 192 mg/dL), and higher fasting blood glucose (103.7 vs. 89.2 mg/dL; P < .01 for all).

After the researchers controlled for age at enrollment, race, BMI, and smoking status, women with PCOS had 1.6 times greater odds of a cardiovascular event after menopause compared with women without PCOS (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P = .029). Those with PCOS also had a significantly higher Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk scores (P = .024), but their Framingham 10-year risk score was not significantly different from those without PCOS.

Although the findings are not necessarily surprising, the study’s value particularly lay in its size, prospective data collection, and rigorous methods, said Ginny Ryan, MD, MA, professor and division chief of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“While this study’s criteria used to identify subjects with PCOS selected a population with a particularly severe phenotype of PCOS and thus a higher risk population for cardiovascular disease, it is vital for women’s health providers to truly understand the medium- and long-term life-threatening associations found more commonly in many with PCOS,” Dr. Ryan, who attended the talk and was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

“This study emphasizes the importance of identifying PCOS before menopause, not just for the patient’s immediate well-being, but also so that appropriate counseling and referral can take place to optimize primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention efforts against CVD and related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Ryan said. “Providers who focus on reproductive health and reproductive-aged women have the opportunity to play a vital role in optimizing the long-term health of their patients.”

Aside from being a prospective cohort with more than 2 decades of follow-up, the study’s other strengths included the definition of PCOS before menopause and use of multiple markers of postmenopausal cardiovascular disease, Dr. Christ said. The study’s main weaknesses were the exclusion of mild PCOS, the self-reporting of cardiovascular events, and the multiple ways of defining menopause.

Dr. Kallen is a consultant for Gynaesight and a reviewer for Healthline. Dr. Christ and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) before menopause appear to have a greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and other cardiovascular events after menopause, according to findings presented at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2020 Scientific Congress.

“We found a PCOS diagnosis prior to menopause was associated with a 64% increased risk of cardiovascular disease after menopause independent of age at enrollment, race, body mass index, and smoking status,” presenter Jacob Christ, MD, a resident at the University of Washington in Seattle, told attendees. “Taken together, our results suggest that women with PCOS have more risk factors for future cardiovascular disease at baseline, and a present PCOS diagnosis prior to menopause is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease after menopause.”

The results are important to consider in women seeking care related to fertility, according to Amanda N. Kallen, MD, assistant professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Yale Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

“As fertility specialists, we often see women with PCOS visit us when they are having trouble conceiving, but often [they] do not return to our care once they’ve built their family,” said Dr. Kallen, who was not involved in the research.

“This excellent talk emphasized how critical it is for us as reproductive endocrinologists to have ongoing discussions with PCOS patients about long-term cardiovascular risks at every opportunity, and to emphasize that these risks persist long after the reproductive years have ended,” Dr. Kallen said in an interview.
 

Identifying women at higher risk

Characteristics of PCOS in adolescence are already understood, including hyperandrogenism, acne, irregular bleeding, and variable ages of menarche, Dr. Christ explained. Similarly, in women’s reproductive years, PCOS is linked to abnormal uterine bleeding, hirsutism, dyslipidemia, infertility, impaired glucose tolerance, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia.

“What is less clear is if baseline cardiometabolic dysfunction during reproductive years translates into cardiovascular disease after menopause,” Dr. Christ said. “Menopausal changes may reduce risk of cardiovascular disease among PCOS women, as it is known that overall, androgen levels decline during menopause. Furthermore, ovarian aging may be delayed in PCOS women, which may be protective against cardiovascular disease.”

To learn more, the researchers completed a secondary analysis of data from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a prospective cohort study. Women enrolled in the study were aged 42-52 years at baseline, had a uterus and at least one ovary, and menstruated within the previous 3 months. Women were considered to have PCOS if they had both biochemical hyperandrogenism and a history of irregular menses.

The researchers included participants in the secondary analysis if they had complete data on the women’s baseline menstrual status and total testosterone and if the women had at least one follow-up visit after menopause. Menopause was approximated as 51 years old if not otherwise reported (or 1 year after study entry if age 51 at entry). At the follow-up visit, women self-reported any cardiovascular disease events since menopause.

The study’s primary outcome was the first postmenopausal cardiovascular event. These included any of the following: myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident or stroke, angina, percutaneous coronary intervention or angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft, heart failure, carotid artery procedure, peripheral artery disease or lower extremity procedure, renal artery procedure, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Among 1,340 women included in the analysis, 174 (13%) women had PCOS and 1,166 did not. The average age at screening and at menopause were not significantly different between the groups, but they did differ based on other baseline characteristics.

More women with PCOS frequently smoked cigarettes (22%) vs. those without PCOS (12.7%), and women with PCOS had an average body mass index of 31.3, vs. 26.7 among those without PCOS. Women with PCOS also had higher systolic blood pressure (120.7 vs. 115.8 mm Hg), higher total cholesterol (202 vs. 192 mg/dL), and higher fasting blood glucose (103.7 vs. 89.2 mg/dL; P < .01 for all).

After the researchers controlled for age at enrollment, race, BMI, and smoking status, women with PCOS had 1.6 times greater odds of a cardiovascular event after menopause compared with women without PCOS (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P = .029). Those with PCOS also had a significantly higher Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk scores (P = .024), but their Framingham 10-year risk score was not significantly different from those without PCOS.

Although the findings are not necessarily surprising, the study’s value particularly lay in its size, prospective data collection, and rigorous methods, said Ginny Ryan, MD, MA, professor and division chief of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“While this study’s criteria used to identify subjects with PCOS selected a population with a particularly severe phenotype of PCOS and thus a higher risk population for cardiovascular disease, it is vital for women’s health providers to truly understand the medium- and long-term life-threatening associations found more commonly in many with PCOS,” Dr. Ryan, who attended the talk and was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

“This study emphasizes the importance of identifying PCOS before menopause, not just for the patient’s immediate well-being, but also so that appropriate counseling and referral can take place to optimize primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention efforts against CVD and related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Ryan said. “Providers who focus on reproductive health and reproductive-aged women have the opportunity to play a vital role in optimizing the long-term health of their patients.”

Aside from being a prospective cohort with more than 2 decades of follow-up, the study’s other strengths included the definition of PCOS before menopause and use of multiple markers of postmenopausal cardiovascular disease, Dr. Christ said. The study’s main weaknesses were the exclusion of mild PCOS, the self-reporting of cardiovascular events, and the multiple ways of defining menopause.

Dr. Kallen is a consultant for Gynaesight and a reviewer for Healthline. Dr. Christ and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) before menopause appear to have a greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and other cardiovascular events after menopause, according to findings presented at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2020 Scientific Congress.

“We found a PCOS diagnosis prior to menopause was associated with a 64% increased risk of cardiovascular disease after menopause independent of age at enrollment, race, body mass index, and smoking status,” presenter Jacob Christ, MD, a resident at the University of Washington in Seattle, told attendees. “Taken together, our results suggest that women with PCOS have more risk factors for future cardiovascular disease at baseline, and a present PCOS diagnosis prior to menopause is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease after menopause.”

The results are important to consider in women seeking care related to fertility, according to Amanda N. Kallen, MD, assistant professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Yale Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

“As fertility specialists, we often see women with PCOS visit us when they are having trouble conceiving, but often [they] do not return to our care once they’ve built their family,” said Dr. Kallen, who was not involved in the research.

“This excellent talk emphasized how critical it is for us as reproductive endocrinologists to have ongoing discussions with PCOS patients about long-term cardiovascular risks at every opportunity, and to emphasize that these risks persist long after the reproductive years have ended,” Dr. Kallen said in an interview.
 

Identifying women at higher risk

Characteristics of PCOS in adolescence are already understood, including hyperandrogenism, acne, irregular bleeding, and variable ages of menarche, Dr. Christ explained. Similarly, in women’s reproductive years, PCOS is linked to abnormal uterine bleeding, hirsutism, dyslipidemia, infertility, impaired glucose tolerance, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia.

“What is less clear is if baseline cardiometabolic dysfunction during reproductive years translates into cardiovascular disease after menopause,” Dr. Christ said. “Menopausal changes may reduce risk of cardiovascular disease among PCOS women, as it is known that overall, androgen levels decline during menopause. Furthermore, ovarian aging may be delayed in PCOS women, which may be protective against cardiovascular disease.”

To learn more, the researchers completed a secondary analysis of data from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a prospective cohort study. Women enrolled in the study were aged 42-52 years at baseline, had a uterus and at least one ovary, and menstruated within the previous 3 months. Women were considered to have PCOS if they had both biochemical hyperandrogenism and a history of irregular menses.

The researchers included participants in the secondary analysis if they had complete data on the women’s baseline menstrual status and total testosterone and if the women had at least one follow-up visit after menopause. Menopause was approximated as 51 years old if not otherwise reported (or 1 year after study entry if age 51 at entry). At the follow-up visit, women self-reported any cardiovascular disease events since menopause.

The study’s primary outcome was the first postmenopausal cardiovascular event. These included any of the following: myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident or stroke, angina, percutaneous coronary intervention or angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft, heart failure, carotid artery procedure, peripheral artery disease or lower extremity procedure, renal artery procedure, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Among 1,340 women included in the analysis, 174 (13%) women had PCOS and 1,166 did not. The average age at screening and at menopause were not significantly different between the groups, but they did differ based on other baseline characteristics.

More women with PCOS frequently smoked cigarettes (22%) vs. those without PCOS (12.7%), and women with PCOS had an average body mass index of 31.3, vs. 26.7 among those without PCOS. Women with PCOS also had higher systolic blood pressure (120.7 vs. 115.8 mm Hg), higher total cholesterol (202 vs. 192 mg/dL), and higher fasting blood glucose (103.7 vs. 89.2 mg/dL; P < .01 for all).

After the researchers controlled for age at enrollment, race, BMI, and smoking status, women with PCOS had 1.6 times greater odds of a cardiovascular event after menopause compared with women without PCOS (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P = .029). Those with PCOS also had a significantly higher Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk scores (P = .024), but their Framingham 10-year risk score was not significantly different from those without PCOS.

Although the findings are not necessarily surprising, the study’s value particularly lay in its size, prospective data collection, and rigorous methods, said Ginny Ryan, MD, MA, professor and division chief of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“While this study’s criteria used to identify subjects with PCOS selected a population with a particularly severe phenotype of PCOS and thus a higher risk population for cardiovascular disease, it is vital for women’s health providers to truly understand the medium- and long-term life-threatening associations found more commonly in many with PCOS,” Dr. Ryan, who attended the talk and was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

“This study emphasizes the importance of identifying PCOS before menopause, not just for the patient’s immediate well-being, but also so that appropriate counseling and referral can take place to optimize primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention efforts against CVD and related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Ryan said. “Providers who focus on reproductive health and reproductive-aged women have the opportunity to play a vital role in optimizing the long-term health of their patients.”

Aside from being a prospective cohort with more than 2 decades of follow-up, the study’s other strengths included the definition of PCOS before menopause and use of multiple markers of postmenopausal cardiovascular disease, Dr. Christ said. The study’s main weaknesses were the exclusion of mild PCOS, the self-reporting of cardiovascular events, and the multiple ways of defining menopause.

Dr. Kallen is a consultant for Gynaesight and a reviewer for Healthline. Dr. Christ and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination therapy using the experimental drug relugolix was effective in treating pain and heavy bleeding from uterine fibroids for a full year, according to findings from a long-term extension study of the phase 3, open-label LIBERTY trials.

The drug was also well tolerated, with retention of bone mineral density and no new adverse events, said Ayman Al-Hendy, MD, PhD, who presented the results Oct. 17 at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020 Scientific Congress.

“Relugolix combination therapy represents a potential long-term treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids,” said Al-Hendy, a gynecologist and endoscopic surgeon at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Al-Hendy, who consults for the company that makes the drug, on Oct. 20 presented results showing improvement in quality of life with relugolix therapy.

“The fact that this longer-term study shows continued, persistent results at a year really gives us confidence that we’ll be able to use these drugs as a long-term therapy to treat fibroids,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, president-elect of ASRM, said in an interview. Dr. Taylor, a professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., was not involved in the study.

“A drug like this is so necessary,” Dr. Taylor continued. “We don’t have any other drugs on the market approved for long-term use.”

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist under investigation for long-term management of uterine fibroids. The once-daily combination therapy includes 40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate.
 

Extension study shows prolonged benefits

The extension trial enrolled women aged 18-50 years who were experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding from uterine fibroids and who completed the 24-week phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials. Heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding in which at least 80 mL of blood was lost per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL was lost during one cycle. Ultrasound imaging was used to confirm the presence of fibroids.

In LIBERTY 1 and 2, women were randomly assigned to receive relugolix combination therapy, placebo, or relugolix alone for 12 weeks followed by combination therapy for the remaining 12 weeks (delayed group). Those trials found that relugolix combination therapy was effective through 6 months in reducing menstrual blood loss and pain in women with uterine fibroids without loss of bone mineral density.

LIBERTY 3 extended the trial to 52 weeks, with all participants receiving relugolix combination therapy.

As in the earlier trials, the primary endpoint was reduced menstrual blood loss. By the end of the study, women needed to have at least a 50% reduction in blood loss from the initial study’s baseline while maintaining a blood loss of <80 mL. The investigators also evaluated the mean percentage of menstrual blood loss reduction, amenorrhea rate, and improvements in anemia as secondary endpoints and assessed changes in bone mineral density.

The extension study enrolled 78% (n = 477) of the 610 women who completed the initial study; of those, 363 women completed the extension study.

Among the 163 women who began with relugolix combination therapy in the first two trials, 87.7% met the primary endpoint in a per-protocol analysis through week 52. The proportion of responders in the extension study was 75.6% among the group that formerly received placebo (n = 164) and 79.9% in the delayed group (n = 149).

The overall average reduction in menstrual blood volume was 89.9%. Most of the women experienced amenorrhea at the end of the year: 70.6% in the relugolix group, 57.9% in the group that formerly received placebo, and 68.5% in the delayed group.

Reductions in uterine volume and uterine fibroid volume were also sustained from week 24 to week 52. For the relugolix combination therapy group, the mean loss of uterine fibroid volume from baseline was 13.5% at week 24 and 18.3% at week 52. Similarly, the delayed group’s average loss in fibroid volume was 28.1% at week 24 and 33.9% at week 52. The placebo group, which only had a 7% loss in fibroid volume at week 24, had an 18.4% loss in volume from baseline at week 52.

Among patients with anemia, defined as hemoglobin concentrations of <10.5 g/dL at baseline, 59% of those in the original relugolix group saw an improvement of at least 2 g/dL hemoglobin. The women’s improvement in pain symptoms also continued through week 52, with a 51.3-point reduction in scores on the bleeding pain and discomfort scale from baseline to the end of the study.

Adverse events were the same in the extension study and in the initial study. Those most commonly reported were headache and hot flashes. No serious safety signals occurred. The average reduction in bone mineral density was 0.80% at week 52, indicating no concerning loss.
 

A new drug class to treat uterine fibroids

Relugolix is one of three GnRH antagonists being studied for the long-term treatment of fibroids. The Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) in May. Linzagolix, another GnRH antagonist, is currently in clinical trials.

“We’ll have a whole class of new drugs that are likely to fulfill this long sought-after goal of reducing the need for surgery for fibroids and doing it without a lot of side effects,” Dr. Taylor said. “The quality-of-life improvements seen here, the lack of significant adverse effects – none that were surprising in long term – the relatively low reduction in bone mineral density in a year are all very exciting [and suggest] that this will be a safe and effective long-term treatment.”
 

Significant improvement in quality of life

In the presentation on quality of life with relugolix therapy, Dr. Al-Hendy shared results regarding the severity of women’s symptoms as well as health-related quality of life, as determined on the basis of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) questionnaire at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in LIBERTY 1 and 2. Higher UFS-QoL scores correlate with more severe symptoms. With the subscale of health-related quality of life, higher scores indicate a better quality of life.

The substudy enrolled 253 patients who received relugolix combination therapy and 256 patients who received placebo. The average menstrual blood loss was 243 mL in the relugolix group and 215 mL in the placebo group at baseline. Mean fibroid volume was the same in both groups at baseline, 73 cm³.

The proportion of Black patients was similar in both groups: 48% of the relugolix group and 54% of the placebo group.

The severity of women’s symptoms dropped from a baseline UFS-QoL score of 57 to 22.4 at 6 months among those who received relugolix combination therapy. In the placebo group, the initial score of 59.6 only dropped to 46.9 (P < .0001, for –21.4 difference in change).

Health-related quality of life increased from 38.3 to 76.6 among those who received relugolix. In the placebo group, it increased from 35.7 to 48.2 (P < .0001, for 24.5 difference). Subscales of health-related quality of life – including concern, control, activities, energy/mood, self-consciousness, and sexual function – also all improved significantly in the relugolix group, compared with the placebo group (P < .0001).

“This is a condition we see all the time that’s easily diagnosed, and we have first-line drugs we’ve been using to treat them, but none are good long-term fixes,” Dr. Taylor said. The current first-line treatments, oral contraceptives, can stabilize bleeding, “but they don’t make the fibroids shrink, they don’t stop the bleeding, women continue to have breakthrough bleeding, and the fibroids can continue to grow.”

He said most of the estimated 600,000 hysterectomies performed in the United States each year are for uterine fibroids.

“It’s a major surgery that no one wants to go through if they don’t have to,” Dr. Taylor said. “Here we have a drug that really has potential to stop the growth of the fibroids, that can stop the bleeding or dramatically improve it, and, really, for the first time, directly impact the fibroids and give us a long-term alternative.”

The studies were funded by Myovant Sciences. Dr. Al-Hendy reported consulting for AbbVie, Bayer, and Myovant Sciences, and he owns a patent for novel diagnostics and therapeutics for uterine sarcoma. Dr. Taylor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination therapy using the experimental drug relugolix was effective in treating pain and heavy bleeding from uterine fibroids for a full year, according to findings from a long-term extension study of the phase 3, open-label LIBERTY trials.

The drug was also well tolerated, with retention of bone mineral density and no new adverse events, said Ayman Al-Hendy, MD, PhD, who presented the results Oct. 17 at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020 Scientific Congress.

“Relugolix combination therapy represents a potential long-term treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids,” said Al-Hendy, a gynecologist and endoscopic surgeon at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Al-Hendy, who consults for the company that makes the drug, on Oct. 20 presented results showing improvement in quality of life with relugolix therapy.

“The fact that this longer-term study shows continued, persistent results at a year really gives us confidence that we’ll be able to use these drugs as a long-term therapy to treat fibroids,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, president-elect of ASRM, said in an interview. Dr. Taylor, a professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., was not involved in the study.

“A drug like this is so necessary,” Dr. Taylor continued. “We don’t have any other drugs on the market approved for long-term use.”

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist under investigation for long-term management of uterine fibroids. The once-daily combination therapy includes 40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate.
 

Extension study shows prolonged benefits

The extension trial enrolled women aged 18-50 years who were experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding from uterine fibroids and who completed the 24-week phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials. Heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding in which at least 80 mL of blood was lost per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL was lost during one cycle. Ultrasound imaging was used to confirm the presence of fibroids.

In LIBERTY 1 and 2, women were randomly assigned to receive relugolix combination therapy, placebo, or relugolix alone for 12 weeks followed by combination therapy for the remaining 12 weeks (delayed group). Those trials found that relugolix combination therapy was effective through 6 months in reducing menstrual blood loss and pain in women with uterine fibroids without loss of bone mineral density.

LIBERTY 3 extended the trial to 52 weeks, with all participants receiving relugolix combination therapy.

As in the earlier trials, the primary endpoint was reduced menstrual blood loss. By the end of the study, women needed to have at least a 50% reduction in blood loss from the initial study’s baseline while maintaining a blood loss of <80 mL. The investigators also evaluated the mean percentage of menstrual blood loss reduction, amenorrhea rate, and improvements in anemia as secondary endpoints and assessed changes in bone mineral density.

The extension study enrolled 78% (n = 477) of the 610 women who completed the initial study; of those, 363 women completed the extension study.

Among the 163 women who began with relugolix combination therapy in the first two trials, 87.7% met the primary endpoint in a per-protocol analysis through week 52. The proportion of responders in the extension study was 75.6% among the group that formerly received placebo (n = 164) and 79.9% in the delayed group (n = 149).

The overall average reduction in menstrual blood volume was 89.9%. Most of the women experienced amenorrhea at the end of the year: 70.6% in the relugolix group, 57.9% in the group that formerly received placebo, and 68.5% in the delayed group.

Reductions in uterine volume and uterine fibroid volume were also sustained from week 24 to week 52. For the relugolix combination therapy group, the mean loss of uterine fibroid volume from baseline was 13.5% at week 24 and 18.3% at week 52. Similarly, the delayed group’s average loss in fibroid volume was 28.1% at week 24 and 33.9% at week 52. The placebo group, which only had a 7% loss in fibroid volume at week 24, had an 18.4% loss in volume from baseline at week 52.

Among patients with anemia, defined as hemoglobin concentrations of <10.5 g/dL at baseline, 59% of those in the original relugolix group saw an improvement of at least 2 g/dL hemoglobin. The women’s improvement in pain symptoms also continued through week 52, with a 51.3-point reduction in scores on the bleeding pain and discomfort scale from baseline to the end of the study.

Adverse events were the same in the extension study and in the initial study. Those most commonly reported were headache and hot flashes. No serious safety signals occurred. The average reduction in bone mineral density was 0.80% at week 52, indicating no concerning loss.
 

A new drug class to treat uterine fibroids

Relugolix is one of three GnRH antagonists being studied for the long-term treatment of fibroids. The Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) in May. Linzagolix, another GnRH antagonist, is currently in clinical trials.

“We’ll have a whole class of new drugs that are likely to fulfill this long sought-after goal of reducing the need for surgery for fibroids and doing it without a lot of side effects,” Dr. Taylor said. “The quality-of-life improvements seen here, the lack of significant adverse effects – none that were surprising in long term – the relatively low reduction in bone mineral density in a year are all very exciting [and suggest] that this will be a safe and effective long-term treatment.”
 

Significant improvement in quality of life

In the presentation on quality of life with relugolix therapy, Dr. Al-Hendy shared results regarding the severity of women’s symptoms as well as health-related quality of life, as determined on the basis of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) questionnaire at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in LIBERTY 1 and 2. Higher UFS-QoL scores correlate with more severe symptoms. With the subscale of health-related quality of life, higher scores indicate a better quality of life.

The substudy enrolled 253 patients who received relugolix combination therapy and 256 patients who received placebo. The average menstrual blood loss was 243 mL in the relugolix group and 215 mL in the placebo group at baseline. Mean fibroid volume was the same in both groups at baseline, 73 cm³.

The proportion of Black patients was similar in both groups: 48% of the relugolix group and 54% of the placebo group.

The severity of women’s symptoms dropped from a baseline UFS-QoL score of 57 to 22.4 at 6 months among those who received relugolix combination therapy. In the placebo group, the initial score of 59.6 only dropped to 46.9 (P < .0001, for –21.4 difference in change).

Health-related quality of life increased from 38.3 to 76.6 among those who received relugolix. In the placebo group, it increased from 35.7 to 48.2 (P < .0001, for 24.5 difference). Subscales of health-related quality of life – including concern, control, activities, energy/mood, self-consciousness, and sexual function – also all improved significantly in the relugolix group, compared with the placebo group (P < .0001).

“This is a condition we see all the time that’s easily diagnosed, and we have first-line drugs we’ve been using to treat them, but none are good long-term fixes,” Dr. Taylor said. The current first-line treatments, oral contraceptives, can stabilize bleeding, “but they don’t make the fibroids shrink, they don’t stop the bleeding, women continue to have breakthrough bleeding, and the fibroids can continue to grow.”

He said most of the estimated 600,000 hysterectomies performed in the United States each year are for uterine fibroids.

“It’s a major surgery that no one wants to go through if they don’t have to,” Dr. Taylor said. “Here we have a drug that really has potential to stop the growth of the fibroids, that can stop the bleeding or dramatically improve it, and, really, for the first time, directly impact the fibroids and give us a long-term alternative.”

The studies were funded by Myovant Sciences. Dr. Al-Hendy reported consulting for AbbVie, Bayer, and Myovant Sciences, and he owns a patent for novel diagnostics and therapeutics for uterine sarcoma. Dr. Taylor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination therapy using the experimental drug relugolix was effective in treating pain and heavy bleeding from uterine fibroids for a full year, according to findings from a long-term extension study of the phase 3, open-label LIBERTY trials.

The drug was also well tolerated, with retention of bone mineral density and no new adverse events, said Ayman Al-Hendy, MD, PhD, who presented the results Oct. 17 at the virtual American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2020 Scientific Congress.

“Relugolix combination therapy represents a potential long-term treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids,” said Al-Hendy, a gynecologist and endoscopic surgeon at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Al-Hendy, who consults for the company that makes the drug, on Oct. 20 presented results showing improvement in quality of life with relugolix therapy.

“The fact that this longer-term study shows continued, persistent results at a year really gives us confidence that we’ll be able to use these drugs as a long-term therapy to treat fibroids,” Hugh S. Taylor, MD, president-elect of ASRM, said in an interview. Dr. Taylor, a professor and chair of ob.gyn. and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., was not involved in the study.

“A drug like this is so necessary,” Dr. Taylor continued. “We don’t have any other drugs on the market approved for long-term use.”

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist under investigation for long-term management of uterine fibroids. The once-daily combination therapy includes 40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate.
 

Extension study shows prolonged benefits

The extension trial enrolled women aged 18-50 years who were experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding from uterine fibroids and who completed the 24-week phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials. Heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding in which at least 80 mL of blood was lost per cycle for two cycles or 160 mL was lost during one cycle. Ultrasound imaging was used to confirm the presence of fibroids.

In LIBERTY 1 and 2, women were randomly assigned to receive relugolix combination therapy, placebo, or relugolix alone for 12 weeks followed by combination therapy for the remaining 12 weeks (delayed group). Those trials found that relugolix combination therapy was effective through 6 months in reducing menstrual blood loss and pain in women with uterine fibroids without loss of bone mineral density.

LIBERTY 3 extended the trial to 52 weeks, with all participants receiving relugolix combination therapy.

As in the earlier trials, the primary endpoint was reduced menstrual blood loss. By the end of the study, women needed to have at least a 50% reduction in blood loss from the initial study’s baseline while maintaining a blood loss of <80 mL. The investigators also evaluated the mean percentage of menstrual blood loss reduction, amenorrhea rate, and improvements in anemia as secondary endpoints and assessed changes in bone mineral density.

The extension study enrolled 78% (n = 477) of the 610 women who completed the initial study; of those, 363 women completed the extension study.

Among the 163 women who began with relugolix combination therapy in the first two trials, 87.7% met the primary endpoint in a per-protocol analysis through week 52. The proportion of responders in the extension study was 75.6% among the group that formerly received placebo (n = 164) and 79.9% in the delayed group (n = 149).

The overall average reduction in menstrual blood volume was 89.9%. Most of the women experienced amenorrhea at the end of the year: 70.6% in the relugolix group, 57.9% in the group that formerly received placebo, and 68.5% in the delayed group.

Reductions in uterine volume and uterine fibroid volume were also sustained from week 24 to week 52. For the relugolix combination therapy group, the mean loss of uterine fibroid volume from baseline was 13.5% at week 24 and 18.3% at week 52. Similarly, the delayed group’s average loss in fibroid volume was 28.1% at week 24 and 33.9% at week 52. The placebo group, which only had a 7% loss in fibroid volume at week 24, had an 18.4% loss in volume from baseline at week 52.

Among patients with anemia, defined as hemoglobin concentrations of <10.5 g/dL at baseline, 59% of those in the original relugolix group saw an improvement of at least 2 g/dL hemoglobin. The women’s improvement in pain symptoms also continued through week 52, with a 51.3-point reduction in scores on the bleeding pain and discomfort scale from baseline to the end of the study.

Adverse events were the same in the extension study and in the initial study. Those most commonly reported were headache and hot flashes. No serious safety signals occurred. The average reduction in bone mineral density was 0.80% at week 52, indicating no concerning loss.
 

A new drug class to treat uterine fibroids

Relugolix is one of three GnRH antagonists being studied for the long-term treatment of fibroids. The Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) in May. Linzagolix, another GnRH antagonist, is currently in clinical trials.

“We’ll have a whole class of new drugs that are likely to fulfill this long sought-after goal of reducing the need for surgery for fibroids and doing it without a lot of side effects,” Dr. Taylor said. “The quality-of-life improvements seen here, the lack of significant adverse effects – none that were surprising in long term – the relatively low reduction in bone mineral density in a year are all very exciting [and suggest] that this will be a safe and effective long-term treatment.”
 

Significant improvement in quality of life

In the presentation on quality of life with relugolix therapy, Dr. Al-Hendy shared results regarding the severity of women’s symptoms as well as health-related quality of life, as determined on the basis of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Health-Related Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) questionnaire at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in LIBERTY 1 and 2. Higher UFS-QoL scores correlate with more severe symptoms. With the subscale of health-related quality of life, higher scores indicate a better quality of life.

The substudy enrolled 253 patients who received relugolix combination therapy and 256 patients who received placebo. The average menstrual blood loss was 243 mL in the relugolix group and 215 mL in the placebo group at baseline. Mean fibroid volume was the same in both groups at baseline, 73 cm³.

The proportion of Black patients was similar in both groups: 48% of the relugolix group and 54% of the placebo group.

The severity of women’s symptoms dropped from a baseline UFS-QoL score of 57 to 22.4 at 6 months among those who received relugolix combination therapy. In the placebo group, the initial score of 59.6 only dropped to 46.9 (P < .0001, for –21.4 difference in change).

Health-related quality of life increased from 38.3 to 76.6 among those who received relugolix. In the placebo group, it increased from 35.7 to 48.2 (P < .0001, for 24.5 difference). Subscales of health-related quality of life – including concern, control, activities, energy/mood, self-consciousness, and sexual function – also all improved significantly in the relugolix group, compared with the placebo group (P < .0001).

“This is a condition we see all the time that’s easily diagnosed, and we have first-line drugs we’ve been using to treat them, but none are good long-term fixes,” Dr. Taylor said. The current first-line treatments, oral contraceptives, can stabilize bleeding, “but they don’t make the fibroids shrink, they don’t stop the bleeding, women continue to have breakthrough bleeding, and the fibroids can continue to grow.”

He said most of the estimated 600,000 hysterectomies performed in the United States each year are for uterine fibroids.

“It’s a major surgery that no one wants to go through if they don’t have to,” Dr. Taylor said. “Here we have a drug that really has potential to stop the growth of the fibroids, that can stop the bleeding or dramatically improve it, and, really, for the first time, directly impact the fibroids and give us a long-term alternative.”

The studies were funded by Myovant Sciences. Dr. Al-Hendy reported consulting for AbbVie, Bayer, and Myovant Sciences, and he owns a patent for novel diagnostics and therapeutics for uterine sarcoma. Dr. Taylor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.