The Hospitalist

Dapagliflozin treatment of patients with heart failure but without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial led to a one-third cut in the relative incidence of new-onset diabetes over a median follow-up of 18 months in a prespecified analysis from the multicenter trial that included 2,605 heart failure patients without diabetes at baseline.

The findings represented the first evidence that a drug from dapagliflozin’s class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, could prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes. It represents “an additional benefit” that dapagliflozin (Farxiga) offers to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) like those enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. DAPA-HF had previously proved that treatment with this drug significantly reduced the study’s primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure worsening.

During 18 months of follow-up, 7.1% of patients in the placebo arm developed type 2 diabetes, compared with 4.9% in those who received dapagliflozin, a 2.2% absolute difference and a 32% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant for this prespecified but “exploratory” endpoint, reported Dr. Inzucchi, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

For this analysis, a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 6.5% measured in two consecutive assessments was the criterion for diagnosing incident diabetes. The 2,605 enrolled patients without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial represented 55% of the entire trial cohort of 4,744 patients with HFrEF.

The 32% relative risk reduction for incident diabetes was primarily relevant to enrolled patients with prediabetes at entry, who constituted 67% of the enrolled cohort based on the usual definition of prediabetes, an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%.

Among all 157 (6%) of the DAPA-HF patients who developed diabetes during the trial, 150 (96%) occurred in patients with prediabetes by the usual definition; 136 of the incident cases (87%) had prediabetes by a more stringent criterion of an A1c of 6.0%-6.4%.

To put the preventive efficacy of dapagliflozin into more context, Dr. Inzucchi cited the 31% relative protection rate exerted by metformin in the Diabetes Prevention Program study (N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346[6]:393-403).

The findings showed that “dapagliflozin is the first medication demonstrated to reduce both incident type 2 diabetes and mortality in a single trial,” as well as the first agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to show a diabetes prevention effect, Dr. Inzucchi noted. Patients with both heart failure and diabetes are known to have a substantially increased mortality risk, compared with patients with just one of these diseases, and the potent risk posed by the confluence of both was confirmed in the results Dr. Inzucchi reported.

The 157 HFrEF patients in the trial who developed diabetes had a statistically significant 70% increased incidence of all-cause mortality during the trial’s follow-up, compared with similar HFrEF patients who remained free from a diabetes diagnosis, and they also had a significant 77% relative increase in their incidence of cardiovascular death. This analysis failed to show that incident diabetes had a significant impact on hospitalizations for heart failure coupled with cardiovascular death, another endpoint of the trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“This is a tremendously important analysis. We recognize that diabetes is an important factor that can forecast heart failure risk, even over relatively short follow-up. A drug that targets both diseases can be quite beneficial,” commented Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The impact of dapagliflozin on average A1c levels during the DAPA-HF trial was minimal, reducing levels by an average of 0.04% among those who entered with prediabetes and by 0.05% among the other patients. This suggests that the mechanisms by which dapagliflozin reduced incident diabetes was by routes that did not involve simply reducing hyperglycemia, and the observed decrease in incident diabetes was not apparently caused by “masking” of hyperglycemia by dapagliflozin, said Dr. Inzucchi.

One possibility is that dapagliflozin, which also improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations in the DAPA-HF trial, led to improved function and mobility among patients that had beneficial effects on their insulin sensitivity, Dr. Vaduganathan speculated in an interview.

The new finding of dapagliflozin’s benefit “is great news,” commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif. “It’s an impressive and important result, and another reason to use dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, a group of patients whom you want to prevent from having worse outcomes” by developing diabetes.

The DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial enrolled HFrEF patients at 410 centers in 20 countries during February 2017–August 2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the composite incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, which occurred in 16.3% of patients randomized to receive dapagliflozin and in 21.2% of control patients on standard care but on placebo instead of the study drug, a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 26% (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). In the 2,605-patient subgroup without type 2 diabetes at baseline the primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin treatment, the first time an SGLT2 inhibitor drug was shown effective for reducing this endpoint in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. DAPA-HF did not enroll any patients with type 1 diabetes.

DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an adviser to AstraZeneca and to Amgen, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including AstraZeneca.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inzucchi SE et al. ADA 2020, abstract 271-OR.

Dapagliflozin treatment of patients with heart failure but without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial led to a one-third cut in the relative incidence of new-onset diabetes over a median follow-up of 18 months in a prespecified analysis from the multicenter trial that included 2,605 heart failure patients without diabetes at baseline.

The findings represented the first evidence that a drug from dapagliflozin’s class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, could prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes. It represents “an additional benefit” that dapagliflozin (Farxiga) offers to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) like those enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. DAPA-HF had previously proved that treatment with this drug significantly reduced the study’s primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure worsening.

During 18 months of follow-up, 7.1% of patients in the placebo arm developed type 2 diabetes, compared with 4.9% in those who received dapagliflozin, a 2.2% absolute difference and a 32% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant for this prespecified but “exploratory” endpoint, reported Dr. Inzucchi, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

For this analysis, a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 6.5% measured in two consecutive assessments was the criterion for diagnosing incident diabetes. The 2,605 enrolled patients without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial represented 55% of the entire trial cohort of 4,744 patients with HFrEF.

The 32% relative risk reduction for incident diabetes was primarily relevant to enrolled patients with prediabetes at entry, who constituted 67% of the enrolled cohort based on the usual definition of prediabetes, an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%.

Among all 157 (6%) of the DAPA-HF patients who developed diabetes during the trial, 150 (96%) occurred in patients with prediabetes by the usual definition; 136 of the incident cases (87%) had prediabetes by a more stringent criterion of an A1c of 6.0%-6.4%.

To put the preventive efficacy of dapagliflozin into more context, Dr. Inzucchi cited the 31% relative protection rate exerted by metformin in the Diabetes Prevention Program study (N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346[6]:393-403).

The findings showed that “dapagliflozin is the first medication demonstrated to reduce both incident type 2 diabetes and mortality in a single trial,” as well as the first agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to show a diabetes prevention effect, Dr. Inzucchi noted. Patients with both heart failure and diabetes are known to have a substantially increased mortality risk, compared with patients with just one of these diseases, and the potent risk posed by the confluence of both was confirmed in the results Dr. Inzucchi reported.

The 157 HFrEF patients in the trial who developed diabetes had a statistically significant 70% increased incidence of all-cause mortality during the trial’s follow-up, compared with similar HFrEF patients who remained free from a diabetes diagnosis, and they also had a significant 77% relative increase in their incidence of cardiovascular death. This analysis failed to show that incident diabetes had a significant impact on hospitalizations for heart failure coupled with cardiovascular death, another endpoint of the trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“This is a tremendously important analysis. We recognize that diabetes is an important factor that can forecast heart failure risk, even over relatively short follow-up. A drug that targets both diseases can be quite beneficial,” commented Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The impact of dapagliflozin on average A1c levels during the DAPA-HF trial was minimal, reducing levels by an average of 0.04% among those who entered with prediabetes and by 0.05% among the other patients. This suggests that the mechanisms by which dapagliflozin reduced incident diabetes was by routes that did not involve simply reducing hyperglycemia, and the observed decrease in incident diabetes was not apparently caused by “masking” of hyperglycemia by dapagliflozin, said Dr. Inzucchi.

One possibility is that dapagliflozin, which also improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations in the DAPA-HF trial, led to improved function and mobility among patients that had beneficial effects on their insulin sensitivity, Dr. Vaduganathan speculated in an interview.

The new finding of dapagliflozin’s benefit “is great news,” commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif. “It’s an impressive and important result, and another reason to use dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, a group of patients whom you want to prevent from having worse outcomes” by developing diabetes.

The DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial enrolled HFrEF patients at 410 centers in 20 countries during February 2017–August 2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the composite incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, which occurred in 16.3% of patients randomized to receive dapagliflozin and in 21.2% of control patients on standard care but on placebo instead of the study drug, a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 26% (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). In the 2,605-patient subgroup without type 2 diabetes at baseline the primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin treatment, the first time an SGLT2 inhibitor drug was shown effective for reducing this endpoint in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. DAPA-HF did not enroll any patients with type 1 diabetes.

DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an adviser to AstraZeneca and to Amgen, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including AstraZeneca.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inzucchi SE et al. ADA 2020, abstract 271-OR.

Dapagliflozin treatment of patients with heart failure but without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial led to a one-third cut in the relative incidence of new-onset diabetes over a median follow-up of 18 months in a prespecified analysis from the multicenter trial that included 2,605 heart failure patients without diabetes at baseline.

The findings represented the first evidence that a drug from dapagliflozin’s class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, could prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes. It represents “an additional benefit” that dapagliflozin (Farxiga) offers to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) like those enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. DAPA-HF had previously proved that treatment with this drug significantly reduced the study’s primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure worsening.

During 18 months of follow-up, 7.1% of patients in the placebo arm developed type 2 diabetes, compared with 4.9% in those who received dapagliflozin, a 2.2% absolute difference and a 32% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant for this prespecified but “exploratory” endpoint, reported Dr. Inzucchi, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

For this analysis, a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 6.5% measured in two consecutive assessments was the criterion for diagnosing incident diabetes. The 2,605 enrolled patients without diabetes in the DAPA-HF trial represented 55% of the entire trial cohort of 4,744 patients with HFrEF.

The 32% relative risk reduction for incident diabetes was primarily relevant to enrolled patients with prediabetes at entry, who constituted 67% of the enrolled cohort based on the usual definition of prediabetes, an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%.

Among all 157 (6%) of the DAPA-HF patients who developed diabetes during the trial, 150 (96%) occurred in patients with prediabetes by the usual definition; 136 of the incident cases (87%) had prediabetes by a more stringent criterion of an A1c of 6.0%-6.4%.

To put the preventive efficacy of dapagliflozin into more context, Dr. Inzucchi cited the 31% relative protection rate exerted by metformin in the Diabetes Prevention Program study (N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346[6]:393-403).

The findings showed that “dapagliflozin is the first medication demonstrated to reduce both incident type 2 diabetes and mortality in a single trial,” as well as the first agent from the SGLT2 inhibitor class to show a diabetes prevention effect, Dr. Inzucchi noted. Patients with both heart failure and diabetes are known to have a substantially increased mortality risk, compared with patients with just one of these diseases, and the potent risk posed by the confluence of both was confirmed in the results Dr. Inzucchi reported.

The 157 HFrEF patients in the trial who developed diabetes had a statistically significant 70% increased incidence of all-cause mortality during the trial’s follow-up, compared with similar HFrEF patients who remained free from a diabetes diagnosis, and they also had a significant 77% relative increase in their incidence of cardiovascular death. This analysis failed to show that incident diabetes had a significant impact on hospitalizations for heart failure coupled with cardiovascular death, another endpoint of the trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“This is a tremendously important analysis. We recognize that diabetes is an important factor that can forecast heart failure risk, even over relatively short follow-up. A drug that targets both diseases can be quite beneficial,” commented Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The impact of dapagliflozin on average A1c levels during the DAPA-HF trial was minimal, reducing levels by an average of 0.04% among those who entered with prediabetes and by 0.05% among the other patients. This suggests that the mechanisms by which dapagliflozin reduced incident diabetes was by routes that did not involve simply reducing hyperglycemia, and the observed decrease in incident diabetes was not apparently caused by “masking” of hyperglycemia by dapagliflozin, said Dr. Inzucchi.

One possibility is that dapagliflozin, which also improved quality of life and reduced hospitalizations in the DAPA-HF trial, led to improved function and mobility among patients that had beneficial effects on their insulin sensitivity, Dr. Vaduganathan speculated in an interview.

The new finding of dapagliflozin’s benefit “is great news,” commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif. “It’s an impressive and important result, and another reason to use dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, a group of patients whom you want to prevent from having worse outcomes” by developing diabetes.

The DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial enrolled HFrEF patients at 410 centers in 20 countries during February 2017–August 2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the composite incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, which occurred in 16.3% of patients randomized to receive dapagliflozin and in 21.2% of control patients on standard care but on placebo instead of the study drug, a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 26% (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). In the 2,605-patient subgroup without type 2 diabetes at baseline the primary endpoint fell by a statistically significant 27% with dapagliflozin treatment, the first time an SGLT2 inhibitor drug was shown effective for reducing this endpoint in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. DAPA-HF did not enroll any patients with type 1 diabetes.

DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Vaduganathan has been an adviser to AstraZeneca and to Amgen, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including AstraZeneca.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Inzucchi SE et al. ADA 2020, abstract 271-OR.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Hey there – just checking on you and letting you know I’m thinking of you."

"I know words don't suffice right now. You are in my thoughts."

"If there's any way that I can be of support or if there's something you need, just let me know."

The texts and emails have come in waves. Pinging into my already distracted headspace when, like them, I’m supposed to be focused on a Zoom or WebEx department meeting. These somber reminders underscore what I have known for years but struggled to describe with each new “justice for” hashtag accompanying the name of the latest unarmed black person to die. This is grief.

With every headline in prior years, as black Americans we have usually found solace in our collective fellowship of suffering. Social media timelines become flooded with our own amen choirs and outrage along with words of comfort and inspiration. We remind ourselves of the prior atrocities survived by our people. And like them, we vow to rally; clinging to one other and praying to make it to shore. Though intermittently joined by a smattering of allies, our suffering has mostly been a private, repetitive mourning.
 

The two pandemics

The year 2020 ushered in a new decade along with the novel SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the United States alone, COVID-19 brought with it a disruption of life in ways never seen by most generations. Schools and businesses were closed to mitigate spread. Mandatory shelter-in-place orders coupled with physical distancing recommendations limited human interactions and canceled everything from hospital visitations to graduations, intergenerational family gatherings, conferences, and weddings. As the data expanded, it quickly became apparent that minorities, particularly black Americans, shouldered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. Known health disparities were amplified.

While caring for our patients as black physicians in the time of coronavirus, silently we mourned again. The connection and trust once found through racial concordance was now masked figuratively and literally by personal protective equipment (PPE). We ignored the sting of intimations that the staggering numbers of African Americans hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 could be explained by lack of discipline or, worse, genetic differences by race. Years of disenfranchisement and missed economic opportunities forced large numbers of our patients and loved ones out on the front lines to do essential jobs – but without the celebratory cheers or fanfare enjoyed by others. Frantic phone calls from family and acquaintances interrupted our quiet drives home from emotionally grueling shifts in the hospital – each conversation serving as our personal evidence of COVID-19 and her ruthless ravage of the black community. Add to this trying to serve as cultural bridges between the complexities of medical distrust and patient advocacy along with wrestling with our own vulnerability as potential COVID-19 patients, these have been overwhelming times to say the least.

Then came the acute decompensation of the chronic racism we’d always known in the form of three recent killings of more unarmed African Americans. On March 13, 2020, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot after police forcibly entered her home after midnight on a “no knock” warrant. The story was buried in the news of COVID-19 – but we knew. Later we’d learn that 26-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by armed neighbors while running through a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood. His death on Feb. 23, 2020, initially yielded no criminal charges. Then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old father arrested for suspected use of a counterfeit $20 bill, died after a law enforcement official kneeled with his full body weight upon Floyd’s neck for more than 8 minutes. The deaths of Arbery and Floyd were captured by cell phone cameras which, aided by social media, quickly reached the eyes of the entire world.

At first, it seemed plausible that this would be like it always has been. A black mother would stand before a podium filled with multiple microphones crying out in anguish. She would be flanked by community leaders and attorneys demanding justice. Hashtags would be formed. Our people would stand up or kneel down in solidarity – holding fast to our historic resilience. Evanescent allies would appear with signs on lawns and held high over heads. A few weeks would pass by and things would go back to normal. Black people would be left with what always remains: heads bowed and praying at dinner tables petitioning a higher power for protection followed by reaffirmations of what, if anything, could be done to keep our own mamas away from that podium. We’ve learned to treat the grief of racism as endemic to us alone, knowing that it has been a pandemic all along.
 

Dr. Manning is a professor of medicine and the associate vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Emory University in Atlanta, where she also is a hospitalist at Grady Memorial Hospital. To read the full version of this article, visit the Journal of Hospital Medicine, where it first appeared (doi: 10.12788/jhm.3481).

“Hey there – just checking on you and letting you know I’m thinking of you."

"I know words don't suffice right now. You are in my thoughts."

"If there's any way that I can be of support or if there's something you need, just let me know."

The texts and emails have come in waves. Pinging into my already distracted headspace when, like them, I’m supposed to be focused on a Zoom or WebEx department meeting. These somber reminders underscore what I have known for years but struggled to describe with each new “justice for” hashtag accompanying the name of the latest unarmed black person to die. This is grief.

With every headline in prior years, as black Americans we have usually found solace in our collective fellowship of suffering. Social media timelines become flooded with our own amen choirs and outrage along with words of comfort and inspiration. We remind ourselves of the prior atrocities survived by our people. And like them, we vow to rally; clinging to one other and praying to make it to shore. Though intermittently joined by a smattering of allies, our suffering has mostly been a private, repetitive mourning.
 

The two pandemics

The year 2020 ushered in a new decade along with the novel SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the United States alone, COVID-19 brought with it a disruption of life in ways never seen by most generations. Schools and businesses were closed to mitigate spread. Mandatory shelter-in-place orders coupled with physical distancing recommendations limited human interactions and canceled everything from hospital visitations to graduations, intergenerational family gatherings, conferences, and weddings. As the data expanded, it quickly became apparent that minorities, particularly black Americans, shouldered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. Known health disparities were amplified.

While caring for our patients as black physicians in the time of coronavirus, silently we mourned again. The connection and trust once found through racial concordance was now masked figuratively and literally by personal protective equipment (PPE). We ignored the sting of intimations that the staggering numbers of African Americans hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 could be explained by lack of discipline or, worse, genetic differences by race. Years of disenfranchisement and missed economic opportunities forced large numbers of our patients and loved ones out on the front lines to do essential jobs – but without the celebratory cheers or fanfare enjoyed by others. Frantic phone calls from family and acquaintances interrupted our quiet drives home from emotionally grueling shifts in the hospital – each conversation serving as our personal evidence of COVID-19 and her ruthless ravage of the black community. Add to this trying to serve as cultural bridges between the complexities of medical distrust and patient advocacy along with wrestling with our own vulnerability as potential COVID-19 patients, these have been overwhelming times to say the least.

Then came the acute decompensation of the chronic racism we’d always known in the form of three recent killings of more unarmed African Americans. On March 13, 2020, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot after police forcibly entered her home after midnight on a “no knock” warrant. The story was buried in the news of COVID-19 – but we knew. Later we’d learn that 26-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by armed neighbors while running through a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood. His death on Feb. 23, 2020, initially yielded no criminal charges. Then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old father arrested for suspected use of a counterfeit $20 bill, died after a law enforcement official kneeled with his full body weight upon Floyd’s neck for more than 8 minutes. The deaths of Arbery and Floyd were captured by cell phone cameras which, aided by social media, quickly reached the eyes of the entire world.

At first, it seemed plausible that this would be like it always has been. A black mother would stand before a podium filled with multiple microphones crying out in anguish. She would be flanked by community leaders and attorneys demanding justice. Hashtags would be formed. Our people would stand up or kneel down in solidarity – holding fast to our historic resilience. Evanescent allies would appear with signs on lawns and held high over heads. A few weeks would pass by and things would go back to normal. Black people would be left with what always remains: heads bowed and praying at dinner tables petitioning a higher power for protection followed by reaffirmations of what, if anything, could be done to keep our own mamas away from that podium. We’ve learned to treat the grief of racism as endemic to us alone, knowing that it has been a pandemic all along.
 

Dr. Manning is a professor of medicine and the associate vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Emory University in Atlanta, where she also is a hospitalist at Grady Memorial Hospital. To read the full version of this article, visit the Journal of Hospital Medicine, where it first appeared (doi: 10.12788/jhm.3481).

“Hey there – just checking on you and letting you know I’m thinking of you."

"I know words don't suffice right now. You are in my thoughts."

"If there's any way that I can be of support or if there's something you need, just let me know."

The texts and emails have come in waves. Pinging into my already distracted headspace when, like them, I’m supposed to be focused on a Zoom or WebEx department meeting. These somber reminders underscore what I have known for years but struggled to describe with each new “justice for” hashtag accompanying the name of the latest unarmed black person to die. This is grief.

With every headline in prior years, as black Americans we have usually found solace in our collective fellowship of suffering. Social media timelines become flooded with our own amen choirs and outrage along with words of comfort and inspiration. We remind ourselves of the prior atrocities survived by our people. And like them, we vow to rally; clinging to one other and praying to make it to shore. Though intermittently joined by a smattering of allies, our suffering has mostly been a private, repetitive mourning.
 

The two pandemics

The year 2020 ushered in a new decade along with the novel SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the United States alone, COVID-19 brought with it a disruption of life in ways never seen by most generations. Schools and businesses were closed to mitigate spread. Mandatory shelter-in-place orders coupled with physical distancing recommendations limited human interactions and canceled everything from hospital visitations to graduations, intergenerational family gatherings, conferences, and weddings. As the data expanded, it quickly became apparent that minorities, particularly black Americans, shouldered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. Known health disparities were amplified.

While caring for our patients as black physicians in the time of coronavirus, silently we mourned again. The connection and trust once found through racial concordance was now masked figuratively and literally by personal protective equipment (PPE). We ignored the sting of intimations that the staggering numbers of African Americans hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 could be explained by lack of discipline or, worse, genetic differences by race. Years of disenfranchisement and missed economic opportunities forced large numbers of our patients and loved ones out on the front lines to do essential jobs – but without the celebratory cheers or fanfare enjoyed by others. Frantic phone calls from family and acquaintances interrupted our quiet drives home from emotionally grueling shifts in the hospital – each conversation serving as our personal evidence of COVID-19 and her ruthless ravage of the black community. Add to this trying to serve as cultural bridges between the complexities of medical distrust and patient advocacy along with wrestling with our own vulnerability as potential COVID-19 patients, these have been overwhelming times to say the least.

Then came the acute decompensation of the chronic racism we’d always known in the form of three recent killings of more unarmed African Americans. On March 13, 2020, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot after police forcibly entered her home after midnight on a “no knock” warrant. The story was buried in the news of COVID-19 – but we knew. Later we’d learn that 26-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by armed neighbors while running through a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood. His death on Feb. 23, 2020, initially yielded no criminal charges. Then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old father arrested for suspected use of a counterfeit $20 bill, died after a law enforcement official kneeled with his full body weight upon Floyd’s neck for more than 8 minutes. The deaths of Arbery and Floyd were captured by cell phone cameras which, aided by social media, quickly reached the eyes of the entire world.

At first, it seemed plausible that this would be like it always has been. A black mother would stand before a podium filled with multiple microphones crying out in anguish. She would be flanked by community leaders and attorneys demanding justice. Hashtags would be formed. Our people would stand up or kneel down in solidarity – holding fast to our historic resilience. Evanescent allies would appear with signs on lawns and held high over heads. A few weeks would pass by and things would go back to normal. Black people would be left with what always remains: heads bowed and praying at dinner tables petitioning a higher power for protection followed by reaffirmations of what, if anything, could be done to keep our own mamas away from that podium. We’ve learned to treat the grief of racism as endemic to us alone, knowing that it has been a pandemic all along.
 

Dr. Manning is a professor of medicine and the associate vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Emory University in Atlanta, where she also is a hospitalist at Grady Memorial Hospital. To read the full version of this article, visit the Journal of Hospital Medicine, where it first appeared (doi: 10.12788/jhm.3481).

Clinically significant sex-based differences in left ventricular ejection fraction related to mortality emerged in a real-world, observational, big data study from Australia, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.

This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.

Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.

Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
 

High LVEF, higher mortality in women

Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.

He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).

The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
 

New treatment opportunity for women?

Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).

Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.

Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.

Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.

“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.

Clinically significant sex-based differences in left ventricular ejection fraction related to mortality emerged in a real-world, observational, big data study from Australia, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.

This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.

Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.

Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
 

High LVEF, higher mortality in women

Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.

He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).

The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
 

New treatment opportunity for women?

Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).

Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.

Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.

Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.

“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.

Clinically significant sex-based differences in left ventricular ejection fraction related to mortality emerged in a real-world, observational, big data study from Australia, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.

This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.

Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.

Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
 

High LVEF, higher mortality in women

Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.

He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).

The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
 

New treatment opportunity for women?

Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).

Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.

Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.

Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.

“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”

Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.