Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

We are months into the COVID-19 crisis, and mental health issues are proving to be rampant. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and this one is no different. The opportunity is clear. For Mental Health Awareness Month and beyond, we must convey a powerful message that mental health is key to our well-being and must be actively addressed. Because almost everyone has felt excess anxiety these last months, we have a unique chance to engage a wider audience.

To address the urgent need, the Mental Health Coalition was formed with the understanding that the mental health crisis is fueled by a pervasive and devastating stigma, preventing millions of individuals from being able to seek the critical treatment they need. Spearheaded by social activist and fashion designer, Kenneth Cole, it is a coalition of leading mental health organizations, brands, celebrities, and advocates who have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health and to change the way people talk about, and care for, mental illness. The group’s mission listed on its website states: “We must increase the conversation around mental health. We must act to end silence, reduce stigma, and engage our community to inspire hope at this essential moment.”

As most of the United States has been under stay-at-home orders, our traditional relationships have been radically disrupted. New types of relationships are forming as we are relying even more on technology to connect us. Social media seems to be on the only “social” we can now safely engage in.

The coalition’s campaign, “#howareyoureally?” is harnessing the power of social media and creating a storytelling platform to allow users to more genuinely share their feelings in these unprecedented times. Celebrities include Whoopi Goldberg, Kendall Jenner, Chris Cuomo, Deepak Chopra, Kesha, and many more have already shared their stories.

“How Are You, Really?” challenges people to answer this question using social media in an open and honest fashion while still providing hope.

The second component of the initiative is to increase access to care, and they have a long list of collaborators, including leading mental health organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Child Mind Institute, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many more.

We have a unique opportunity this Mental Health Awareness Month, and I hope we will see more and more people sharing their stories and reaching out for help. As a community, we must be prepared to meet the escalating needs of our population.
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach, Fla. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018) and is the founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world. Dr. Ritvo also is the cofounder of the Bold Beauty Project, a nonprofit group that pairs women with disabilities with photographers who create art exhibitions to raise awareness.

Neurologists continue to be on the lower end of the physician compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last, and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Neurologist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Neurologists’ average annual income this year rose to $280,000, up from $267,000 last year. More than half of neurologists (53%) feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that the data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, data show that since the start of the crisis, physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they had closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in neurology, with male neurologists earning about 26% more than their female peers ($299,000 vs. $237,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

More than half of all physicians (56%) say they receive an incentive bonus. Neurologists report that they are eligible for an annual incentive bonus of $35,000. Average annual incentive bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one third of physicians overall who receive incentive bonuses say the prospect of receiving the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours. A higher percentage of neurologists (41%) say their potential bonus influenced them to increase their work hours.

Fifty-eight percent of neurologists achieve more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, neurologists achieve about two thirds of their potential bonus, the same proportion as for physicians overall.

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts who were interviewed recently by Medscape noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.
 

Happy at work

On average, male neurologists spend 37.7 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat more hours per week than female neurologists (36.1 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, neurologists spend 16.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5), infectious disease physicians (18.5), and psychiatrists (18.3). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a neurologist? Being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses tops the list (33%), followed by making the world a better place/helping others (26%), relationships with and gratitude from patients (18%), and making good money at a job they like (11%). A few cited teaching (5%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing neurology is having to follow so many rules and regulations (26%). Other challenges include having to work long hours (18%), dealing with difficult patients (17%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (13%), and working with electronic health records (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over again, 73% of neurologists would still choose medicine as a career, and 86% would again choose neurology.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding neurologists include the following:

• At 18%, neurologists rank near the middle among physicians with regard to losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• 29% of neurologists say they use physician assistants (PAs) to treat patients in their practices, and 53% use nurse practitioners (NPs); 38% use neither for patient care. Of neurologists who work with PAs and NPs in their offices, 49% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• Two-thirds of neurologists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; none say they will not take new Medicare patients; and 26% are undecided.
• Neurologists participate in various payment methods; 78% are reimbursed via insurance, 35% have fee-for-service arrangements, and 28% are in accountable care organizations.
• Nearly 40% of neurologists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system option, and 10% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologists continue to be on the lower end of the physician compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last, and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Neurologist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Neurologists’ average annual income this year rose to $280,000, up from $267,000 last year. More than half of neurologists (53%) feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that the data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, data show that since the start of the crisis, physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they had closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in neurology, with male neurologists earning about 26% more than their female peers ($299,000 vs. $237,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

More than half of all physicians (56%) say they receive an incentive bonus. Neurologists report that they are eligible for an annual incentive bonus of $35,000. Average annual incentive bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one third of physicians overall who receive incentive bonuses say the prospect of receiving the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours. A higher percentage of neurologists (41%) say their potential bonus influenced them to increase their work hours.

Fifty-eight percent of neurologists achieve more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, neurologists achieve about two thirds of their potential bonus, the same proportion as for physicians overall.

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts who were interviewed recently by Medscape noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.
 

Happy at work

On average, male neurologists spend 37.7 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat more hours per week than female neurologists (36.1 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, neurologists spend 16.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5), infectious disease physicians (18.5), and psychiatrists (18.3). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a neurologist? Being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses tops the list (33%), followed by making the world a better place/helping others (26%), relationships with and gratitude from patients (18%), and making good money at a job they like (11%). A few cited teaching (5%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing neurology is having to follow so many rules and regulations (26%). Other challenges include having to work long hours (18%), dealing with difficult patients (17%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (13%), and working with electronic health records (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over again, 73% of neurologists would still choose medicine as a career, and 86% would again choose neurology.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding neurologists include the following:

• At 18%, neurologists rank near the middle among physicians with regard to losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• 29% of neurologists say they use physician assistants (PAs) to treat patients in their practices, and 53% use nurse practitioners (NPs); 38% use neither for patient care. Of neurologists who work with PAs and NPs in their offices, 49% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• Two-thirds of neurologists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; none say they will not take new Medicare patients; and 26% are undecided.
• Neurologists participate in various payment methods; 78% are reimbursed via insurance, 35% have fee-for-service arrangements, and 28% are in accountable care organizations.
• Nearly 40% of neurologists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system option, and 10% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologists continue to be on the lower end of the physician compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last, and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Neurologist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Neurologists’ average annual income this year rose to $280,000, up from $267,000 last year. More than half of neurologists (53%) feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that the data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, data show that since the start of the crisis, physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they had closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in neurology, with male neurologists earning about 26% more than their female peers ($299,000 vs. $237,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

More than half of all physicians (56%) say they receive an incentive bonus. Neurologists report that they are eligible for an annual incentive bonus of $35,000. Average annual incentive bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one third of physicians overall who receive incentive bonuses say the prospect of receiving the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours. A higher percentage of neurologists (41%) say their potential bonus influenced them to increase their work hours.

Fifty-eight percent of neurologists achieve more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, neurologists achieve about two thirds of their potential bonus, the same proportion as for physicians overall.

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts who were interviewed recently by Medscape noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.
 

Happy at work

On average, male neurologists spend 37.7 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat more hours per week than female neurologists (36.1 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, neurologists spend 16.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5), infectious disease physicians (18.5), and psychiatrists (18.3). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a neurologist? Being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses tops the list (33%), followed by making the world a better place/helping others (26%), relationships with and gratitude from patients (18%), and making good money at a job they like (11%). A few cited teaching (5%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing neurology is having to follow so many rules and regulations (26%). Other challenges include having to work long hours (18%), dealing with difficult patients (17%), trouble getting fair reimbursement (13%), and working with electronic health records (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over again, 73% of neurologists would still choose medicine as a career, and 86% would again choose neurology.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding neurologists include the following:

• At 18%, neurologists rank near the middle among physicians with regard to losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• 29% of neurologists say they use physician assistants (PAs) to treat patients in their practices, and 53% use nurse practitioners (NPs); 38% use neither for patient care. Of neurologists who work with PAs and NPs in their offices, 49% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• Two-thirds of neurologists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; none say they will not take new Medicare patients; and 26% are undecided.
• Neurologists participate in various payment methods; 78% are reimbursed via insurance, 35% have fee-for-service arrangements, and 28% are in accountable care organizations.
• Nearly 40% of neurologists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system option, and 10% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

A new nationwide U.S. observational study suggests that ACE inhibitors may protect against severe illness in older people with COVID-19, prompting the start of a randomized clinical trial to test the strategy.

In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.

The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.

Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.

Courtesy Yale University

At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.

“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.

A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.

The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”

For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.

In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.

Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.

However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).

A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.

The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.

They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.

“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”

The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”

They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
 

Experts cautious

However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.

“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”

Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.

“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.

“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
 

New meta-analysis

The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.

The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.

The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”

In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.

“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
 

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

U.S. endocrinologists reported an average income that continues to be among the lowest of all specialist groups, according to results from the latest Medscape Annual Compensation Report.

In the survey, which represents the responses of over 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties, endocrinologists report an average annual income of $236,000, which is unchanged from that detailed last year.

The report reflects data collected from Oct. 4, 2019 to Feb. 10, 2020, so does not take into account any effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It puts the diabetes and endocrinology specialty above family medicine, public health and preventive medicine, and pediatrics but nevertheless among the lowest-earning specialties.

At the opposite end of the earnings scale, orthopedics is at the top, with those doctors earning an average of $511,000 per year, followed by plastic surgery, otolaryngology, cardiology, and radiology.

The reported compensation reflects full-time salaries with patient care, including salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions for employed physicians, and earnings after taxes and deductible business expenses for self-employed physicians practicing medicine in the United States.

A gender gap in compensation is still apparent, with male endocrinologists earning about 23% more ($258,000) than their female counterparts ($209,000).

Overall, male specialists earn 31% more than women, which is a slight improvement on the 33% gender pay gap reported in 2019.

Survey respondents were 64% male and 34% female, with 2% declining to respond.
 

Half happy with pay, most would still choose same path

Around half (49%) of endocrinologists reported feeling fairly compensated for their work, an increase from last year’s rate of 42%.

In all, 82% said – if given another chance – they would choose a career in medicine again, higher than the rate of 77% of physicians overall. And as many as 80% said they would remain in the specialty of endocrinology.

For 35% of endocrinologists, the most rewarding part of their job is gratitude and relationships with patients. The most challenging part is “having so many rules and regulations,” cited by 25% of respondents, followed by working with an EHR system, reported by 20%.

Endocrinologists spent an average of about 34 hours per week seeing patients, lower than the 37.9 hours per week reported among all physicians. And the average of 16.5 hours per week spent on paperwork and administration by endocrinologists is similar to the 15.6 hours reported by physicians overall.

In terms of Medicare and Medicaid patients, 71% of endocrinologists said they had no plans to stop providing services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, which is similar to the overall rate of 73%.

About half of endocrinologists (51%) reported using nurse practitioners and 25% used physician assistants, while 42% used neither.

Among those using nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 50% reported that the assistance increased profitability; 44% said the staffers had no effect on profitability, and 6% reported decreased profitability.

Only about 13% of endocrinologists reported having claims denied or needing to be resubmitted, well below the highest levels of 28% and 22% reported in plastic surgery and emergency medicine, respectively.
 

COVID-19 suppresses compensation, but boosts telemedicine

Subsequent compensation surveys can be expected to reflect the heavy toll that COVID-19 pandemic has taken on nearly all professions in health care – as well as global economies as a whole.

Specialist practices in general report as much as a 55% decrease in revenue, on average, and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the crisis, according to the report.

As many as 43,000 U.S. health care workers were reportedly laid off in March 2020 alone, as hospitals and physician groups announced layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts in response to the fallout from the pandemic. And a reported 9% of independent medical practices have had to close, at least temporarily.

Meanwhile, the use of remote technologies for patient engagement has increased by 225%.

Specialties that rely heavily on elective procedures that were for the most part delayed during the pandemic have been particularly hard-hit, notably in those practicing orthopedics, plastic surgery, dermatology, cardiology, and ophthalmology.

“The health impact of COVID-19 has been grave, and the financial fallout is widespread,” according to the Medscape report.

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

U.S. endocrinologists reported an average income that continues to be among the lowest of all specialist groups, according to results from the latest Medscape Annual Compensation Report.

In the survey, which represents the responses of over 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties, endocrinologists report an average annual income of $236,000, which is unchanged from that detailed last year.

The report reflects data collected from Oct. 4, 2019 to Feb. 10, 2020, so does not take into account any effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It puts the diabetes and endocrinology specialty above family medicine, public health and preventive medicine, and pediatrics but nevertheless among the lowest-earning specialties.

At the opposite end of the earnings scale, orthopedics is at the top, with those doctors earning an average of $511,000 per year, followed by plastic surgery, otolaryngology, cardiology, and radiology.

The reported compensation reflects full-time salaries with patient care, including salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions for employed physicians, and earnings after taxes and deductible business expenses for self-employed physicians practicing medicine in the United States.

A gender gap in compensation is still apparent, with male endocrinologists earning about 23% more ($258,000) than their female counterparts ($209,000).

Overall, male specialists earn 31% more than women, which is a slight improvement on the 33% gender pay gap reported in 2019.

Survey respondents were 64% male and 34% female, with 2% declining to respond.
 

Half happy with pay, most would still choose same path

Around half (49%) of endocrinologists reported feeling fairly compensated for their work, an increase from last year’s rate of 42%.

In all, 82% said – if given another chance – they would choose a career in medicine again, higher than the rate of 77% of physicians overall. And as many as 80% said they would remain in the specialty of endocrinology.

For 35% of endocrinologists, the most rewarding part of their job is gratitude and relationships with patients. The most challenging part is “having so many rules and regulations,” cited by 25% of respondents, followed by working with an EHR system, reported by 20%.

Endocrinologists spent an average of about 34 hours per week seeing patients, lower than the 37.9 hours per week reported among all physicians. And the average of 16.5 hours per week spent on paperwork and administration by endocrinologists is similar to the 15.6 hours reported by physicians overall.

In terms of Medicare and Medicaid patients, 71% of endocrinologists said they had no plans to stop providing services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, which is similar to the overall rate of 73%.

About half of endocrinologists (51%) reported using nurse practitioners and 25% used physician assistants, while 42% used neither.

Among those using nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 50% reported that the assistance increased profitability; 44% said the staffers had no effect on profitability, and 6% reported decreased profitability.

Only about 13% of endocrinologists reported having claims denied or needing to be resubmitted, well below the highest levels of 28% and 22% reported in plastic surgery and emergency medicine, respectively.
 

COVID-19 suppresses compensation, but boosts telemedicine

Subsequent compensation surveys can be expected to reflect the heavy toll that COVID-19 pandemic has taken on nearly all professions in health care – as well as global economies as a whole.

Specialist practices in general report as much as a 55% decrease in revenue, on average, and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the crisis, according to the report.

As many as 43,000 U.S. health care workers were reportedly laid off in March 2020 alone, as hospitals and physician groups announced layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts in response to the fallout from the pandemic. And a reported 9% of independent medical practices have had to close, at least temporarily.

Meanwhile, the use of remote technologies for patient engagement has increased by 225%.

Specialties that rely heavily on elective procedures that were for the most part delayed during the pandemic have been particularly hard-hit, notably in those practicing orthopedics, plastic surgery, dermatology, cardiology, and ophthalmology.

“The health impact of COVID-19 has been grave, and the financial fallout is widespread,” according to the Medscape report.

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

U.S. endocrinologists reported an average income that continues to be among the lowest of all specialist groups, according to results from the latest Medscape Annual Compensation Report.

In the survey, which represents the responses of over 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties, endocrinologists report an average annual income of $236,000, which is unchanged from that detailed last year.

The report reflects data collected from Oct. 4, 2019 to Feb. 10, 2020, so does not take into account any effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It puts the diabetes and endocrinology specialty above family medicine, public health and preventive medicine, and pediatrics but nevertheless among the lowest-earning specialties.

At the opposite end of the earnings scale, orthopedics is at the top, with those doctors earning an average of $511,000 per year, followed by plastic surgery, otolaryngology, cardiology, and radiology.

The reported compensation reflects full-time salaries with patient care, including salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions for employed physicians, and earnings after taxes and deductible business expenses for self-employed physicians practicing medicine in the United States.

A gender gap in compensation is still apparent, with male endocrinologists earning about 23% more ($258,000) than their female counterparts ($209,000).

Overall, male specialists earn 31% more than women, which is a slight improvement on the 33% gender pay gap reported in 2019.

Survey respondents were 64% male and 34% female, with 2% declining to respond.
 

Half happy with pay, most would still choose same path

Around half (49%) of endocrinologists reported feeling fairly compensated for their work, an increase from last year’s rate of 42%.

In all, 82% said – if given another chance – they would choose a career in medicine again, higher than the rate of 77% of physicians overall. And as many as 80% said they would remain in the specialty of endocrinology.

For 35% of endocrinologists, the most rewarding part of their job is gratitude and relationships with patients. The most challenging part is “having so many rules and regulations,” cited by 25% of respondents, followed by working with an EHR system, reported by 20%.

Endocrinologists spent an average of about 34 hours per week seeing patients, lower than the 37.9 hours per week reported among all physicians. And the average of 16.5 hours per week spent on paperwork and administration by endocrinologists is similar to the 15.6 hours reported by physicians overall.

In terms of Medicare and Medicaid patients, 71% of endocrinologists said they had no plans to stop providing services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, which is similar to the overall rate of 73%.

About half of endocrinologists (51%) reported using nurse practitioners and 25% used physician assistants, while 42% used neither.

Among those using nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 50% reported that the assistance increased profitability; 44% said the staffers had no effect on profitability, and 6% reported decreased profitability.

Only about 13% of endocrinologists reported having claims denied or needing to be resubmitted, well below the highest levels of 28% and 22% reported in plastic surgery and emergency medicine, respectively.
 

COVID-19 suppresses compensation, but boosts telemedicine

Subsequent compensation surveys can be expected to reflect the heavy toll that COVID-19 pandemic has taken on nearly all professions in health care – as well as global economies as a whole.

Specialist practices in general report as much as a 55% decrease in revenue, on average, and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the crisis, according to the report.

As many as 43,000 U.S. health care workers were reportedly laid off in March 2020 alone, as hospitals and physician groups announced layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts in response to the fallout from the pandemic. And a reported 9% of independent medical practices have had to close, at least temporarily.

Meanwhile, the use of remote technologies for patient engagement has increased by 225%.

Specialties that rely heavily on elective procedures that were for the most part delayed during the pandemic have been particularly hard-hit, notably in those practicing orthopedics, plastic surgery, dermatology, cardiology, and ophthalmology.

“The health impact of COVID-19 has been grave, and the financial fallout is widespread,” according to the Medscape report.

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

The drastic drop in admissions for acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy has seen a parallel rise in MI fatality rates in those who do present to hospitals, according to a new report. This gives credence to suggestions that people have avoided hospitals during the pandemic despite life-threatening emergencies.

Salvatore De Rosa, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported their results in the European Heart Journal.

“These data return a frightening picture of about half of AMI patients not reaching out to the hospital at all, which will probably significantly increase mortality for AMI and bring with it a number of patients with post-MI heart failure, despite the fact that acute coronary syndrome management protocols were promptly implemented,” Dr. De Rosa, of Magna Graecia University in Catanzaro, Italy, and associates wrote.
 

Hospitalizations down

The study counted AMIs at 54 hospital coronary care units nationwide for the week of March 12-19, 2020, at the height of the coronavirus outbreak in northern Italy, and compared that with an equivalent week in 2019. The researchers reported 319 AMIs during the week in 2020, compared with 618 in the equivalent 2019 week, a 48% reduction (P < .001). Although the outbreak was worst in northern Italy, the decline in admissions occurred throughout the country.

An analysis of subtype determined the decline in the incidence of ST-segment elevation MI lagged significantly behind that of non-STEMI. STEMI declined from 268 in 2019 to 197 in 2020, a 27% reduction, while hospitalizations for non-STEMI went from 350 to 122, a 65% reduction.

The researchers also found substantial reductions in hospitalizations for heart failure, by 47%, and atrial fibrillation, by 53%. Incidentally, the mean age of atrial fibrillation patients was considerably younger in 2020: 64.6 vs. 70 years.
 

Death, complications up

AMI patients who managed to get to the hospital during the pandemic also had worse outcomes. Mortality for STEMI cases more than tripled, to 14% during the outbreak, compared with 4% in 2019 (P < .001) and complication rates increased by 80% to 19% (P = .025). Twenty-one STEMI patients were positive for COVID-19 and more than a quarter (29%) died, which was more than two and a half times the 12% death rate in non–COVID-19 STEMI patients.

Analysis of the STEMI group also found that the care gap for women with heart disease worsened significantly during the pandemic, as they comprised 20.3% of cases this year, compared with 25.4% before the pandemic. Also, the reduction in admissions for STEMI during the pandemic was statistically significant at 41% for women, but not for men at 18%.

Non-STEMI patients fared better overall than STEMI patients, but their outcomes also worsened during the pandemic. Non-STEMI patients were significantly less likely to have percutaneous coronary intervention during the pandemic than previously; the rate declined by 13%, from 77% to 66%. The non-STEMI mortality rate nearly doubled, although not statistically significantly, from 1.7% to 3.3%, whereas complication rates actually more than doubled, from 5.1% to 10.7%, a significant difference. Twelve (9.8%) of the non-STEMI patients were COVID-19 positive, but none died.
 

Trend extends beyond borders

Dr. De Rosa and colleagues noted that their findings are in line with studies that reported similar declines for STEMI interventions in the United States and Spain during the pandemic (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.011; REC Interv Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.24875/RECIC.M20000120).

Additionally, a group at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California also reported a 50% decline in the incidence of AMI hospitalizations during the pandemic (N Engl J Med. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2015630). Likewise, a study of aortic dissections in New York reported a sharp decline in procedures during the pandemic in the city, from 13 to 3 a month (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.022)

The researchers in Italy didn’t aim to determine the reasons for the decline in AMI hospitalizations, but Dr. De Rosa and colleagues speculated on the following explanations: Fear of contagion in response to media reports, concentration of resources to address COVID-19 may have engendered a sense to defer less urgent care among patients and health care systems, and a true reduction in acute cardiovascular disease because people under stay-at-home orders had low physical stress.

“The concern is fewer MIs most likely means people are dying at home or presenting later as this study suggests,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, in interpreting the results of the Italian study.

That could be a result of a mixed message from the media about accessing health care during the pandemic. “What it suggests to a lot of us is that the media has transmitted this notion that hospitals are busy taking care of COVID-19 patients, but we never said don’t come to hospital if you’re having a heart attack,” Dr. Gulati said. “I think we created some sort of fear that patients if they didn’t have COVID-19 they didn’t want to bother physicians.”

Dr. Gulati, whose practice focuses on women with CVD, said the study’s findings that interventions in women dropped more precipitously than men were concerning. “We know already that women don’t do as well after a heart attack, compared to men, and now we see it worsen it even further when women aren’t presenting,” she said. “We’re worried that this is going to increase the gap.”

Dr. DeRosa and colleagues have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: De Rosa S et al. Euro Heart J. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa409.

The drastic drop in admissions for acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy has seen a parallel rise in MI fatality rates in those who do present to hospitals, according to a new report. This gives credence to suggestions that people have avoided hospitals during the pandemic despite life-threatening emergencies.

Salvatore De Rosa, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported their results in the European Heart Journal.

“These data return a frightening picture of about half of AMI patients not reaching out to the hospital at all, which will probably significantly increase mortality for AMI and bring with it a number of patients with post-MI heart failure, despite the fact that acute coronary syndrome management protocols were promptly implemented,” Dr. De Rosa, of Magna Graecia University in Catanzaro, Italy, and associates wrote.
 

Hospitalizations down

The study counted AMIs at 54 hospital coronary care units nationwide for the week of March 12-19, 2020, at the height of the coronavirus outbreak in northern Italy, and compared that with an equivalent week in 2019. The researchers reported 319 AMIs during the week in 2020, compared with 618 in the equivalent 2019 week, a 48% reduction (P < .001). Although the outbreak was worst in northern Italy, the decline in admissions occurred throughout the country.

An analysis of subtype determined the decline in the incidence of ST-segment elevation MI lagged significantly behind that of non-STEMI. STEMI declined from 268 in 2019 to 197 in 2020, a 27% reduction, while hospitalizations for non-STEMI went from 350 to 122, a 65% reduction.

The researchers also found substantial reductions in hospitalizations for heart failure, by 47%, and atrial fibrillation, by 53%. Incidentally, the mean age of atrial fibrillation patients was considerably younger in 2020: 64.6 vs. 70 years.
 

Death, complications up

AMI patients who managed to get to the hospital during the pandemic also had worse outcomes. Mortality for STEMI cases more than tripled, to 14% during the outbreak, compared with 4% in 2019 (P < .001) and complication rates increased by 80% to 19% (P = .025). Twenty-one STEMI patients were positive for COVID-19 and more than a quarter (29%) died, which was more than two and a half times the 12% death rate in non–COVID-19 STEMI patients.

Analysis of the STEMI group also found that the care gap for women with heart disease worsened significantly during the pandemic, as they comprised 20.3% of cases this year, compared with 25.4% before the pandemic. Also, the reduction in admissions for STEMI during the pandemic was statistically significant at 41% for women, but not for men at 18%.

Non-STEMI patients fared better overall than STEMI patients, but their outcomes also worsened during the pandemic. Non-STEMI patients were significantly less likely to have percutaneous coronary intervention during the pandemic than previously; the rate declined by 13%, from 77% to 66%. The non-STEMI mortality rate nearly doubled, although not statistically significantly, from 1.7% to 3.3%, whereas complication rates actually more than doubled, from 5.1% to 10.7%, a significant difference. Twelve (9.8%) of the non-STEMI patients were COVID-19 positive, but none died.
 

Trend extends beyond borders

Dr. De Rosa and colleagues noted that their findings are in line with studies that reported similar declines for STEMI interventions in the United States and Spain during the pandemic (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.011; REC Interv Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.24875/RECIC.M20000120).

Additionally, a group at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California also reported a 50% decline in the incidence of AMI hospitalizations during the pandemic (N Engl J Med. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2015630). Likewise, a study of aortic dissections in New York reported a sharp decline in procedures during the pandemic in the city, from 13 to 3 a month (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.022)

The researchers in Italy didn’t aim to determine the reasons for the decline in AMI hospitalizations, but Dr. De Rosa and colleagues speculated on the following explanations: Fear of contagion in response to media reports, concentration of resources to address COVID-19 may have engendered a sense to defer less urgent care among patients and health care systems, and a true reduction in acute cardiovascular disease because people under stay-at-home orders had low physical stress.

“The concern is fewer MIs most likely means people are dying at home or presenting later as this study suggests,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, in interpreting the results of the Italian study.

That could be a result of a mixed message from the media about accessing health care during the pandemic. “What it suggests to a lot of us is that the media has transmitted this notion that hospitals are busy taking care of COVID-19 patients, but we never said don’t come to hospital if you’re having a heart attack,” Dr. Gulati said. “I think we created some sort of fear that patients if they didn’t have COVID-19 they didn’t want to bother physicians.”

Dr. Gulati, whose practice focuses on women with CVD, said the study’s findings that interventions in women dropped more precipitously than men were concerning. “We know already that women don’t do as well after a heart attack, compared to men, and now we see it worsen it even further when women aren’t presenting,” she said. “We’re worried that this is going to increase the gap.”

Dr. DeRosa and colleagues have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: De Rosa S et al. Euro Heart J. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa409.

The drastic drop in admissions for acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy has seen a parallel rise in MI fatality rates in those who do present to hospitals, according to a new report. This gives credence to suggestions that people have avoided hospitals during the pandemic despite life-threatening emergencies.

Salvatore De Rosa, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported their results in the European Heart Journal.

“These data return a frightening picture of about half of AMI patients not reaching out to the hospital at all, which will probably significantly increase mortality for AMI and bring with it a number of patients with post-MI heart failure, despite the fact that acute coronary syndrome management protocols were promptly implemented,” Dr. De Rosa, of Magna Graecia University in Catanzaro, Italy, and associates wrote.
 

Hospitalizations down

The study counted AMIs at 54 hospital coronary care units nationwide for the week of March 12-19, 2020, at the height of the coronavirus outbreak in northern Italy, and compared that with an equivalent week in 2019. The researchers reported 319 AMIs during the week in 2020, compared with 618 in the equivalent 2019 week, a 48% reduction (P < .001). Although the outbreak was worst in northern Italy, the decline in admissions occurred throughout the country.

An analysis of subtype determined the decline in the incidence of ST-segment elevation MI lagged significantly behind that of non-STEMI. STEMI declined from 268 in 2019 to 197 in 2020, a 27% reduction, while hospitalizations for non-STEMI went from 350 to 122, a 65% reduction.

The researchers also found substantial reductions in hospitalizations for heart failure, by 47%, and atrial fibrillation, by 53%. Incidentally, the mean age of atrial fibrillation patients was considerably younger in 2020: 64.6 vs. 70 years.
 

Death, complications up

AMI patients who managed to get to the hospital during the pandemic also had worse outcomes. Mortality for STEMI cases more than tripled, to 14% during the outbreak, compared with 4% in 2019 (P < .001) and complication rates increased by 80% to 19% (P = .025). Twenty-one STEMI patients were positive for COVID-19 and more than a quarter (29%) died, which was more than two and a half times the 12% death rate in non–COVID-19 STEMI patients.

Analysis of the STEMI group also found that the care gap for women with heart disease worsened significantly during the pandemic, as they comprised 20.3% of cases this year, compared with 25.4% before the pandemic. Also, the reduction in admissions for STEMI during the pandemic was statistically significant at 41% for women, but not for men at 18%.

Non-STEMI patients fared better overall than STEMI patients, but their outcomes also worsened during the pandemic. Non-STEMI patients were significantly less likely to have percutaneous coronary intervention during the pandemic than previously; the rate declined by 13%, from 77% to 66%. The non-STEMI mortality rate nearly doubled, although not statistically significantly, from 1.7% to 3.3%, whereas complication rates actually more than doubled, from 5.1% to 10.7%, a significant difference. Twelve (9.8%) of the non-STEMI patients were COVID-19 positive, but none died.
 

Trend extends beyond borders

Dr. De Rosa and colleagues noted that their findings are in line with studies that reported similar declines for STEMI interventions in the United States and Spain during the pandemic (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.011; REC Interv Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.24875/RECIC.M20000120).

Additionally, a group at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California also reported a 50% decline in the incidence of AMI hospitalizations during the pandemic (N Engl J Med. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2015630). Likewise, a study of aortic dissections in New York reported a sharp decline in procedures during the pandemic in the city, from 13 to 3 a month (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.022)

The researchers in Italy didn’t aim to determine the reasons for the decline in AMI hospitalizations, but Dr. De Rosa and colleagues speculated on the following explanations: Fear of contagion in response to media reports, concentration of resources to address COVID-19 may have engendered a sense to defer less urgent care among patients and health care systems, and a true reduction in acute cardiovascular disease because people under stay-at-home orders had low physical stress.

“The concern is fewer MIs most likely means people are dying at home or presenting later as this study suggests,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, in interpreting the results of the Italian study.

That could be a result of a mixed message from the media about accessing health care during the pandemic. “What it suggests to a lot of us is that the media has transmitted this notion that hospitals are busy taking care of COVID-19 patients, but we never said don’t come to hospital if you’re having a heart attack,” Dr. Gulati said. “I think we created some sort of fear that patients if they didn’t have COVID-19 they didn’t want to bother physicians.”

Dr. Gulati, whose practice focuses on women with CVD, said the study’s findings that interventions in women dropped more precipitously than men were concerning. “We know already that women don’t do as well after a heart attack, compared to men, and now we see it worsen it even further when women aren’t presenting,” she said. “We’re worried that this is going to increase the gap.”

Dr. DeRosa and colleagues have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: De Rosa S et al. Euro Heart J. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa409.

Between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020, infectious disease specialists reported making $246,000, which puts them at the fifth lowest paid specialty included in Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020. Men earned $265,000 to women’s $211,000 and made up 64% of respondents.

Infectious disease specialists are tied with internal medicine for time spent on paperwork at 18.5 hours/week, with only critical care beating them at 19.1 hours per week. Among infectious disease specialists, 41% reported that being very good at what they do/finding answers and diagnoses as the most rewarding part of their jobs, whereas rules and regulations, long hours, and difficulties with reimbursement were cited as the most challenging aspects (at 21%, 17%, and 15%, respectively).

About 51% report feeling they’re fairly compensated, with puts them in a tie with ob.gyns. for the fifth and sixth lowest positions in this regard.

The data in this report were gathered before COVID-19 had really taken hold in the United States – before states began issuing stay-at-home orders and before practices began implementing their own precautions. Although in the best interest of both patients and providers, switching to telemedicine, eliminating most elective procedures, and making other changes to improve safety will have significant financial consequences. It is unclear at this time how the ongoing pandemic will affect things like physician compensation and income.

The survey respondents were Medscape members who had been invited to participate. The sample size was 17,461 physicians, and compensation was modeled and estimated based on a range of variables across 6 years of survey data.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020, infectious disease specialists reported making $246,000, which puts them at the fifth lowest paid specialty included in Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020. Men earned $265,000 to women’s $211,000 and made up 64% of respondents.

Infectious disease specialists are tied with internal medicine for time spent on paperwork at 18.5 hours/week, with only critical care beating them at 19.1 hours per week. Among infectious disease specialists, 41% reported that being very good at what they do/finding answers and diagnoses as the most rewarding part of their jobs, whereas rules and regulations, long hours, and difficulties with reimbursement were cited as the most challenging aspects (at 21%, 17%, and 15%, respectively).

About 51% report feeling they’re fairly compensated, with puts them in a tie with ob.gyns. for the fifth and sixth lowest positions in this regard.

The data in this report were gathered before COVID-19 had really taken hold in the United States – before states began issuing stay-at-home orders and before practices began implementing their own precautions. Although in the best interest of both patients and providers, switching to telemedicine, eliminating most elective procedures, and making other changes to improve safety will have significant financial consequences. It is unclear at this time how the ongoing pandemic will affect things like physician compensation and income.

The survey respondents were Medscape members who had been invited to participate. The sample size was 17,461 physicians, and compensation was modeled and estimated based on a range of variables across 6 years of survey data.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020, infectious disease specialists reported making $246,000, which puts them at the fifth lowest paid specialty included in Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020. Men earned $265,000 to women’s $211,000 and made up 64% of respondents.

Infectious disease specialists are tied with internal medicine for time spent on paperwork at 18.5 hours/week, with only critical care beating them at 19.1 hours per week. Among infectious disease specialists, 41% reported that being very good at what they do/finding answers and diagnoses as the most rewarding part of their jobs, whereas rules and regulations, long hours, and difficulties with reimbursement were cited as the most challenging aspects (at 21%, 17%, and 15%, respectively).

About 51% report feeling they’re fairly compensated, with puts them in a tie with ob.gyns. for the fifth and sixth lowest positions in this regard.

The data in this report were gathered before COVID-19 had really taken hold in the United States – before states began issuing stay-at-home orders and before practices began implementing their own precautions. Although in the best interest of both patients and providers, switching to telemedicine, eliminating most elective procedures, and making other changes to improve safety will have significant financial consequences. It is unclear at this time how the ongoing pandemic will affect things like physician compensation and income.

The survey respondents were Medscape members who had been invited to participate. The sample size was 17,461 physicians, and compensation was modeled and estimated based on a range of variables across 6 years of survey data.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Children born before 27 weeks’ gestation had lower combined risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment when exposed to antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate together, compared with exposure of either or neither therapy, according to a prospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

MichaelDeLeon/E+

“If there is sufficient time to administer antenatal corticosteroids, there should similarly be sufficient time to administer magnesium sulfate,” wrote Samuel J. Gentle, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues. “Given the lower rate of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death in children exposed to both antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate in the present study, compared with those exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone, increasing the rates of magnesium sulfate exposure through quality improvement or other interventions may improve infant outcomes.”

Although previous randomized controlled trials had shown neurologic benefits of each therapy independently in preterm children, few data exist on extremely preterm children, the authors noted. They also pointed out differences in the findings when they analyzed neurodevelopmental outcomes and death separately.

“Whereas exposure to both therapies was associated with a lower rate of death, exposure to magnesium sulfate in addition to antenatal corticosteroids was not associated with a lower rate of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or components of severe neurodevelopmental impairment including Bayley scores, bilateral hearing impairment, and cerebral palsy,” Dr Gentle and his coauthors wrote.

The researchers used prospectively collected data from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network Generic Database to track 3,093 children born extremely preterm – from 22 weeks 0 days to 26 weeks 6 days – during 2011-2014.

The researchers compared outcomes of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment when the children were 18-26 months of corrected age based on whether they had been exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone (betamethasone or dexamethasone) or antenatal corticosteroids in addition to magnesium sulfate. Severe neurodevelopmental impairment included “severe cerebral palsy, motor or cognitive composite score less than 70 on the Bayley-III exam, bilateral blindness, or bilateral severe functional hearing impairment with or without amplification.”

The researchers also looked at severe neurodevelopmental impairment and death among children with only magnesium sulfate exposure or with no exposure to steroids or magnesium.

In the study population, 73% of infants had been exposed to both therapies, 16% had been exposed to only corticosteroids, 3% to only magnesium sulfate, and 8% to neither therapy.

“Importantly, a larger proportion of mothers unexposed to either therapy, compared with both therapies, received high school or less education or had no maternal private health insurance which may suggest health inequity as a driver for antenatal therapy exposure rates,” Dr. Gentle and associates noted.

Children whose mothers received corticosteroids and magnesium had a 27% lower risk of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death, compared with those whose mothers only received corticosteroids (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73). Just over a third of children exposed to both interventions (36%) had severe neurodevelopmental impairment or died, compared with 44% of those exposed only to steroids.

Similarly, corticosteroids and magnesium together were associated with approximately half the risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment, compared with magnesium alone (aOR, 0.49) and 34% lower risk, compared with neither therapy (aOR 0.66).

When the researchers uncoupled the outcomes, severe neurodevelopmental impairment rates were similar among all exposure groups, but rates of death were lower among those who received both therapies than among those who received just one or neither therapy.

“The therapeutic mechanism for neuroprotection in children exposed to magnesium sulfate is unclear but may result from neuronal stabilization or anti-inflammatory properties,” Dr. Gentle and colleagues said.

They also compared rates in the exposure groups of grade 3-4 intracranial hemorrhage, which has been linked to poor neurodevelopmental outcomes in extremely preterm children.

“The rate of grade 3-4 intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between children exposed to both antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate and those exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone,” they said. “These findings further support data from randomized controlled trials showing benefit for antenatal corticosteroids but not for magnesium sulfate.”

They further noted a Cochrane Review that found significantly reduced risk of severe or any intracranial hemorrhage among children exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. No similar reduction in intracranial hemorrhage occurred in a separate Cochrane Review of antenatal magnesium sulfate trials.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One author is a consultant for Mednax who has received travel funds. Another author disclosed Catholic Health Professionals of Houston paid honorarium for an ethics talk he gave.

SOURCE: Gentle SJ et al. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003882.

Children born before 27 weeks’ gestation had lower combined risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment when exposed to antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate together, compared with exposure of either or neither therapy, according to a prospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

MichaelDeLeon/E+

“If there is sufficient time to administer antenatal corticosteroids, there should similarly be sufficient time to administer magnesium sulfate,” wrote Samuel J. Gentle, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues. “Given the lower rate of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death in children exposed to both antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate in the present study, compared with those exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone, increasing the rates of magnesium sulfate exposure through quality improvement or other interventions may improve infant outcomes.”

Although previous randomized controlled trials had shown neurologic benefits of each therapy independently in preterm children, few data exist on extremely preterm children, the authors noted. They also pointed out differences in the findings when they analyzed neurodevelopmental outcomes and death separately.

“Whereas exposure to both therapies was associated with a lower rate of death, exposure to magnesium sulfate in addition to antenatal corticosteroids was not associated with a lower rate of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or components of severe neurodevelopmental impairment including Bayley scores, bilateral hearing impairment, and cerebral palsy,” Dr Gentle and his coauthors wrote.

The researchers used prospectively collected data from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network Generic Database to track 3,093 children born extremely preterm – from 22 weeks 0 days to 26 weeks 6 days – during 2011-2014.

The researchers compared outcomes of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment when the children were 18-26 months of corrected age based on whether they had been exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone (betamethasone or dexamethasone) or antenatal corticosteroids in addition to magnesium sulfate. Severe neurodevelopmental impairment included “severe cerebral palsy, motor or cognitive composite score less than 70 on the Bayley-III exam, bilateral blindness, or bilateral severe functional hearing impairment with or without amplification.”

The researchers also looked at severe neurodevelopmental impairment and death among children with only magnesium sulfate exposure or with no exposure to steroids or magnesium.

In the study population, 73% of infants had been exposed to both therapies, 16% had been exposed to only corticosteroids, 3% to only magnesium sulfate, and 8% to neither therapy.

“Importantly, a larger proportion of mothers unexposed to either therapy, compared with both therapies, received high school or less education or had no maternal private health insurance which may suggest health inequity as a driver for antenatal therapy exposure rates,” Dr. Gentle and associates noted.

Children whose mothers received corticosteroids and magnesium had a 27% lower risk of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death, compared with those whose mothers only received corticosteroids (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73). Just over a third of children exposed to both interventions (36%) had severe neurodevelopmental impairment or died, compared with 44% of those exposed only to steroids.

Similarly, corticosteroids and magnesium together were associated with approximately half the risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment, compared with magnesium alone (aOR, 0.49) and 34% lower risk, compared with neither therapy (aOR 0.66).

When the researchers uncoupled the outcomes, severe neurodevelopmental impairment rates were similar among all exposure groups, but rates of death were lower among those who received both therapies than among those who received just one or neither therapy.

“The therapeutic mechanism for neuroprotection in children exposed to magnesium sulfate is unclear but may result from neuronal stabilization or anti-inflammatory properties,” Dr. Gentle and colleagues said.

They also compared rates in the exposure groups of grade 3-4 intracranial hemorrhage, which has been linked to poor neurodevelopmental outcomes in extremely preterm children.

“The rate of grade 3-4 intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between children exposed to both antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate and those exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone,” they said. “These findings further support data from randomized controlled trials showing benefit for antenatal corticosteroids but not for magnesium sulfate.”

They further noted a Cochrane Review that found significantly reduced risk of severe or any intracranial hemorrhage among children exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. No similar reduction in intracranial hemorrhage occurred in a separate Cochrane Review of antenatal magnesium sulfate trials.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One author is a consultant for Mednax who has received travel funds. Another author disclosed Catholic Health Professionals of Houston paid honorarium for an ethics talk he gave.

SOURCE: Gentle SJ et al. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003882.

Children born before 27 weeks’ gestation had lower combined risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment when exposed to antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate together, compared with exposure of either or neither therapy, according to a prospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

MichaelDeLeon/E+

“If there is sufficient time to administer antenatal corticosteroids, there should similarly be sufficient time to administer magnesium sulfate,” wrote Samuel J. Gentle, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues. “Given the lower rate of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death in children exposed to both antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate in the present study, compared with those exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone, increasing the rates of magnesium sulfate exposure through quality improvement or other interventions may improve infant outcomes.”

Although previous randomized controlled trials had shown neurologic benefits of each therapy independently in preterm children, few data exist on extremely preterm children, the authors noted. They also pointed out differences in the findings when they analyzed neurodevelopmental outcomes and death separately.

“Whereas exposure to both therapies was associated with a lower rate of death, exposure to magnesium sulfate in addition to antenatal corticosteroids was not associated with a lower rate of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or components of severe neurodevelopmental impairment including Bayley scores, bilateral hearing impairment, and cerebral palsy,” Dr Gentle and his coauthors wrote.

The researchers used prospectively collected data from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network Generic Database to track 3,093 children born extremely preterm – from 22 weeks 0 days to 26 weeks 6 days – during 2011-2014.

The researchers compared outcomes of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment when the children were 18-26 months of corrected age based on whether they had been exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone (betamethasone or dexamethasone) or antenatal corticosteroids in addition to magnesium sulfate. Severe neurodevelopmental impairment included “severe cerebral palsy, motor or cognitive composite score less than 70 on the Bayley-III exam, bilateral blindness, or bilateral severe functional hearing impairment with or without amplification.”

The researchers also looked at severe neurodevelopmental impairment and death among children with only magnesium sulfate exposure or with no exposure to steroids or magnesium.

In the study population, 73% of infants had been exposed to both therapies, 16% had been exposed to only corticosteroids, 3% to only magnesium sulfate, and 8% to neither therapy.

“Importantly, a larger proportion of mothers unexposed to either therapy, compared with both therapies, received high school or less education or had no maternal private health insurance which may suggest health inequity as a driver for antenatal therapy exposure rates,” Dr. Gentle and associates noted.

Children whose mothers received corticosteroids and magnesium had a 27% lower risk of severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death, compared with those whose mothers only received corticosteroids (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73). Just over a third of children exposed to both interventions (36%) had severe neurodevelopmental impairment or died, compared with 44% of those exposed only to steroids.

Similarly, corticosteroids and magnesium together were associated with approximately half the risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment, compared with magnesium alone (aOR, 0.49) and 34% lower risk, compared with neither therapy (aOR 0.66).

When the researchers uncoupled the outcomes, severe neurodevelopmental impairment rates were similar among all exposure groups, but rates of death were lower among those who received both therapies than among those who received just one or neither therapy.

“The therapeutic mechanism for neuroprotection in children exposed to magnesium sulfate is unclear but may result from neuronal stabilization or anti-inflammatory properties,” Dr. Gentle and colleagues said.

They also compared rates in the exposure groups of grade 3-4 intracranial hemorrhage, which has been linked to poor neurodevelopmental outcomes in extremely preterm children.

“The rate of grade 3-4 intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between children exposed to both antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate and those exposed to antenatal corticosteroids alone,” they said. “These findings further support data from randomized controlled trials showing benefit for antenatal corticosteroids but not for magnesium sulfate.”

They further noted a Cochrane Review that found significantly reduced risk of severe or any intracranial hemorrhage among children exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. No similar reduction in intracranial hemorrhage occurred in a separate Cochrane Review of antenatal magnesium sulfate trials.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One author is a consultant for Mednax who has received travel funds. Another author disclosed Catholic Health Professionals of Houston paid honorarium for an ethics talk he gave.

SOURCE: Gentle SJ et al. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003882.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

COVID-19 vaccines face tough road

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rather, a successful vaccine against coronavirus will likely need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium. “In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco. READ MORE
 

Chilblain-like lesions in children with suspected COVID-19

Reports are growing of cases of children with suspected COVID-19 and chilblain-like lesions. Most recently, there were two reports in Spain and Italy. These symptoms should be considered a sign of infection with the virus, but the symptoms themselves typically don’t require treatment, according to the authors of the two new reports, which were published in Pediatric Dermatology. READ MORE

FDA approves olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer

The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone. The agency also recently approved rucaparib (Rubraca) for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). READ MORE

Drugs, alcohol, suicide

Deaths from drugs, alcohol, and suicide are on the rise, despite recent decreases in opioid overdose deaths. A report released May 21 by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Well Being Trust shows that 151,964 Americans died in 2018 from alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Experts warn that these deaths may increase in the wake of COVID-19. “We know what works to address deaths of despair but progress has been uneven and death rates continue to climb, with communities of color experiencing higher rates of increases in drug-induced and alcohol deaths,” said TFAH President and CEO John Auerbach. READ MORE

Guidance on managing suspected stroke during COVID-19

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has developed a “conceptual framework” to assist emergency medical service providers and in-hospital triage teams handle suspected cases of acute stroke during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. The main factors to guide the triage decision are the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion; the magnitude of additional delays because of inter-hospital transfer and work flow efficiency at the primary stroke center or acute stroke ready hospital; the need for advanced critical care resources; and the availability of bed, staff, and PPE resources at the hospitals. READ MORE

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

COVID-19 vaccines face tough road

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rather, a successful vaccine against coronavirus will likely need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium. “In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco. READ MORE
 

Chilblain-like lesions in children with suspected COVID-19

Reports are growing of cases of children with suspected COVID-19 and chilblain-like lesions. Most recently, there were two reports in Spain and Italy. These symptoms should be considered a sign of infection with the virus, but the symptoms themselves typically don’t require treatment, according to the authors of the two new reports, which were published in Pediatric Dermatology. READ MORE

FDA approves olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer

The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone. The agency also recently approved rucaparib (Rubraca) for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). READ MORE

Drugs, alcohol, suicide

Deaths from drugs, alcohol, and suicide are on the rise, despite recent decreases in opioid overdose deaths. A report released May 21 by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Well Being Trust shows that 151,964 Americans died in 2018 from alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Experts warn that these deaths may increase in the wake of COVID-19. “We know what works to address deaths of despair but progress has been uneven and death rates continue to climb, with communities of color experiencing higher rates of increases in drug-induced and alcohol deaths,” said TFAH President and CEO John Auerbach. READ MORE

Guidance on managing suspected stroke during COVID-19

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has developed a “conceptual framework” to assist emergency medical service providers and in-hospital triage teams handle suspected cases of acute stroke during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. The main factors to guide the triage decision are the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion; the magnitude of additional delays because of inter-hospital transfer and work flow efficiency at the primary stroke center or acute stroke ready hospital; the need for advanced critical care resources; and the availability of bed, staff, and PPE resources at the hospitals. READ MORE

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

COVID-19 vaccines face tough road

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rather, a successful vaccine against coronavirus will likely need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium. “In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco. READ MORE
 

Chilblain-like lesions in children with suspected COVID-19

Reports are growing of cases of children with suspected COVID-19 and chilblain-like lesions. Most recently, there were two reports in Spain and Italy. These symptoms should be considered a sign of infection with the virus, but the symptoms themselves typically don’t require treatment, according to the authors of the two new reports, which were published in Pediatric Dermatology. READ MORE

FDA approves olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer

The Food and Drug Administration approved olaparib (Lynparza) for deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or somatic homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The drug is limited to use in men who have progressed following prior treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone. The agency also recently approved rucaparib (Rubraca) for use in patients with mCRPC that harbor deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). READ MORE

Drugs, alcohol, suicide

Deaths from drugs, alcohol, and suicide are on the rise, despite recent decreases in opioid overdose deaths. A report released May 21 by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Well Being Trust shows that 151,964 Americans died in 2018 from alcohol, drugs, and suicide. Experts warn that these deaths may increase in the wake of COVID-19. “We know what works to address deaths of despair but progress has been uneven and death rates continue to climb, with communities of color experiencing higher rates of increases in drug-induced and alcohol deaths,” said TFAH President and CEO John Auerbach. READ MORE

Guidance on managing suspected stroke during COVID-19

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has developed a “conceptual framework” to assist emergency medical service providers and in-hospital triage teams handle suspected cases of acute stroke during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. The main factors to guide the triage decision are the likelihood of a large vessel occlusion; the magnitude of additional delays because of inter-hospital transfer and work flow efficiency at the primary stroke center or acute stroke ready hospital; the need for advanced critical care resources; and the availability of bed, staff, and PPE resources at the hospitals. READ MORE

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Higher cardiovascular risk burden, as measured by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS), is associated with neurodegenerative signs in the brain and may predict cognitive decline over time.

“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.

“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”

Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
 

Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition

The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).

Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.

A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.

Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.

At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.

Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.

The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.

Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early

Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.

“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.

“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”

Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.

Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.

Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.

Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.

The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.

Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher cardiovascular risk burden, as measured by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS), is associated with neurodegenerative signs in the brain and may predict cognitive decline over time.

“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.

“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”

Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
 

Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition

The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).

Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.

A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.

Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.

At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.

Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.

The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.

Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early

Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.

“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.

“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”

Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.

Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.

Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.

Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.

The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.

Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher cardiovascular risk burden, as measured by the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score (FGCRS), is associated with neurodegenerative signs in the brain and may predict cognitive decline over time.

“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.

“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”

Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
 

Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition

The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).

Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.

A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.

Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.

At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.

Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.

The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.

Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early

Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.

“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.

“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”

Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.

Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.

Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.

Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.

The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.

Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.

Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.

This article appeared on Medscape.com.