Search This Blog

Monday, April 5, 2021

Study breaches theory that blood type affects COVID risk

 A or B, AB or O, it doesn't matter—your blood type has nothing to do with your risk of contracting severe COVID-19, a new study concludes.

Early in the pandemic, some reports suggested people with A-type blood were more susceptible to COVID, while those with O-type blood were less so.

But a review of nearly 108,000 patients in a three-state health network has found no link at all between  and COVID risk.

"Since the beginning of this pandemic, there have been associations postulated between blood type and disease susceptibility," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

"From this large study, it appears that there is no association between blood type and susceptibility or severity, and other explanations were likely present," added Adalja, who had no role in the study.

An early report from China suggested that blood type might influence COVID risk. Subsequent studies from Italy and Spain backed that up, researchers said in background notes.

However, other studies out of Denmark and the United States offered mixed and conflicting results.

To clear things up, researchers led by Dr. Jeffrey Anderson, from Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Murray, Utah, analyzed data from tens of thousands of patients with Intermountain Healthcare, a nonprofit health system of 24 hospitals and 215 clinics in Utah, Idaho and Nevada.

Of those in the analysis, nearly 11,500 tested positive for , while the rest tested negative.

Blood type did not play a significant role in anyone's risk of contracting COVID, the researchers reported April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

"I've always said this whole thing with the blood types is much hoopla about nothing," said Dr. Aaron Glatt, chairman of the department of medicine and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y. "It was never a significant enough thing that people should be terrified if they have one sort of blood type or reassured if they have another blood type. It never made any practical difference."

Glatt was not involved in the new research.

He said the findings from earlier studies demonstrate why correlation is not the same as causation—in other words, why showing that two things are statistically linked is not the same as proving that one caused the other.

"If you go and look at enough things, you will find some random incidental findings that may or may not have any significance," Glatt said. "Some people looked at so many different variables and one of them was blood type. They saw that some people did worse with a certain  type, but the studies were conflicting, which makes sense if it's random."

Glatt concluded: "This puts this whole thing to rest, but it never should have been up."

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-04-refutes-theory-blood-affects-covid.html

Top 10 healthcare companies for financial strength

 Ten healthcare organizations were ranked for scoring high in financial strength by the Drucker Institute, according to a ranking published in The Wall Street Journal.

For its "Management Top 250" ranking, the Drucker Institute measures organizations in five areas: customer satisfaction, employee engagement and development, innovation, social responsibility, and financial strength. 

Twenty-nine of the top 250 organizations are in the healthcare and life sciences sector.

Here are the 10 healthcare organizations that received the highest score for financial strength:

1. Johnson & Johnson

Overall rank: 9

2. Merck

Overall rank: 11

3. Eli Lilly

Overall rank: 39

4. AbbVie

Overall rank: 46

5. Regeneron

Overall rank: 84

6. Biogen

Overall rank: 99

7. Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Overall rank: 101

8. Bio-Rad Laboratories

Overall rank: 156

9. DexCom

Overall rank: 185

10. Amgen

Overall rank: 26

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/top-10-healthcare-companies-for-financial-strength.html

'Hospital at Home': 6 Qs on the care model, answered

 If "Hospital at Home" is a term you've been hearing more often, you're not alone. The term was coined more than two decades ago, but has gained popularity in the last year as hospitals look to innovative care-delivery models to preserve bed capacity and limit COVID-19 exposure risks during the pandemic.

Below is a breakdown on what the Hospital at Home care model entails, how it originated, which health systems have mastered it and more. 

What is it?

The model entails providing hospital-level care to acutely ill older adults in the comfort of their own homes with the goal of fully substituting acute hospital care, according to Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Medicine

What are its origins?

The Hospital at Home model dates to 1995 and is the brainchild of John Burton, MD, former director of geriatric medicine and gerontology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and Donna Regenstreif, PhD, a former leader at the John A. Hartford Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving care of older adults.

Drs. Burton and Regenstreif envisioned a model to provide safe and effective hospital care at home. A team of geriatric researchers led by Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, developed the basic clinical model and its patient eligibility criteria. 

From 1996 to 1998, the researchers conducted a 17-patient pilot trial to prove the model's safety and feasibility, followed by a national study at three Medicare managed care organizations and one Veterans Affairs hospital from 2000 to 2002 to further assess its safety and benefits. The latter effort marked the first time the model was fully implemented as a replacement for hospital care, according to Johns Hopkins.

In 2011, Johns Hopkins helped the healthcare startup Clinically Home develop its own home-based care model, which relies more heavily on telemedicine than the original model.

How does the model work?

In Johns Hopkins' model, the process starts with healthcare staff identifying eligible patients using validated criteria. This step often occurs in the emergency department or ambulatory care sites. Patients who are eligible and agree to participate are evaluated by the physician who will oversee their home-based care and are then transported home, often by ambulance. 

The patient will receive extended nursing care during the initial portion of their "admission," which then tapers off to daily nursing visits based on clinical need. A physician will also visit the patient daily for an evaluation and will implement any necessary diagnostic measures or treatments at home. Such measures include electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, X-rays, oxygen therapy and intravenous fluids or antibiotics. For some procedures like MRIs and endoscopies, patients will need to make a brief trip to the hospital. 

In the Clinically Home model, physicians perform video visits with the patient and nursing staff, instead of doing house calls, according to an article from The Commonwealth Fund, a healthcare policy research firm.

This care process continues until the patient is stable, and at the time of discharge, care reverts to the patient's primary care physician.

What are the model's benefits?

Over the last two decades, mounting evidence has pointed to the model's clinical and financial benefits for patients and healthcare organizations.

Johns Hopkins' first national study of the model, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2005, found patients treated via the Hospital at Home model had:

  • Better clinical outcomes
  • A shorter average length of stay (3.2 days versus 4.9 days)
  • Higher patient and family satisfaction 
  • Fewer lab and diagnostic tests compared to similar hospitalized patients
  • Fewer complications often associated with hospital stays, such as delirium, infections and the need for sedative medications or physical restraints
  • Lower care costs by up to 30 percent compared to traditional inpatient care 

Many patients are attracted to the convenience and comfort of receiving care in their own homes. The model also allows caregivers or family members to remain at the patient's bedside, which is not always possible in hospitals today due to COVID-19 visitor restrictions.

For hospitals, the model can translate into greater cost-savings and more clinical efficiency. The model also offers unique benefits during the pandemic, including conservation of personal protective equipment, greater bed availability and the ability to keep infectious patients out of the hospital.

What systems have mastered it?

New York City-based Mount Sinai Health System and Albuquerque, N.M.-based Presbyterian Healthcare Services were both early adopters of Johns Hopkins' Hospital at Home model.

Presbyterian Healthcare Services launched its program in 2008. More than 92 percent of patients presented with the option for at-home care take it, according to a 2016 case study of the organization's program. In 2012, Presbyterian researchers published a study showing Medicare Advantage or Medicaid patients treated through the program had 19 percent lower care costs, along with similar or better outcomes than hospitalized patients.  

Mount Sinai launched its program in 2014 after receiving a $9.6 million grant from the CMS Innovation Center. The health system found patients participating in its Hospitalization at Home  program had an 8.6 percent 30-day readmission rate, compared to 16.1 percent for similar hospitalized patients, according to a case study from the American Hospital Association. Patients who received home-based care also had fewer ED visits (5.8 percent versus 11.9 percent) and reported a better patient experience (67.8 percent versus 45.6 percent).

Other prominent systems are also jumping on the bandwagon. In June 2020, Rochester, Minn.-based Mayo Clinic and Salt Lake City-based Intermountain Healthcare both rolled out their own models to deliver hospital care at home.

In November 2020, CMS launched its Acute Hospital Care at Home program, which allowed hospitals to receive Medicare reimbursement for at-home care services provided to patients for more than 60 conditions. As of April 5, more than 100 healthcare organizations were approved to participate in this program.

Is your health system ready to implement a Hospital at Home program?

Before adopting a home-based care model, health systems must ensure they have the necessary resources, roles, organizational culture and reimbursement models in place.

Johns Hopkins outlines six questions health systems should ask before implementing such a model:

  • Is your health system experiencing problems from a lack of hospital capacity?

  • Does your health system have established home healthcare delivery capabilities?

  • Do you have physicians with the interest and ability to care for patients in the home environment?

  • Does your health system experience a large volume of Medicare admissions for common problems such as community-acquired pneumonia, heart failure or chronic pulmonary disease?

  • Does your institution view itself as an innovator in developing and implementing new models or systems of care?

  • Can your health system align payment, providers and the hospital for this model?

Health Care Up Amid VC Interest In Sector

 Health-care companies rose as venture-capital investors unveiled activity in genetic firms.

SoftBank Group plans to lead an investment of nearly $1.2 billion into genetic-testing provider Invitae, as the Japanese technology giant ramps up an effort to put more money into public companies.

Startup Inscripta raised $150 million in new venture capital to roll out a genome-editing instrument that could help researchers in healthcare and other industries biologically engineer new products.

Newly reported Covid-19 cases in the U.S. fell by nearly half on Sunday from a day earlier to 34,000, while the number of deaths recorded also dropped sharply. The increasingly rapid rollout of vaccines appears to be slowing the rate of Covid transmission in much of the U.S.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Health-Care-Up-Amid-VC-Interest-In-Sector-Health-Care-Roundup--32888289/

Aspergillus fungus emerges as threat to hospitalized COVID-19 patients

 COVID-19 brings thousands of people into hospitals every day—but their coronavirus infections are not always the direct reason they die. Dangerous secondary infections by opportunistic pathogens are common in intensive care units, and physicians are raising the alarm about a particular microbial threat to COVID-19 patients: a common fungus known as Aspergillus.

Emerging evidence suggests that infection with SARS-CoV-2—and possibly the drugs used to treat it—makes COVID-19 patients especially vulnerable to Aspergillus. The threat, which also surfaced during the 2009 flu pandemic, is leading some researchers to urge more careful fungal surveillance of the sickest COVID-19 patients and treatment with antifungal drugs.

Aspergillus is ubiquitous—you can’t avoid it,” says George Thompson, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, Davis. Members of its genus produce spores that can float in the air, and we breathe in hundreds to thousands or more [of them] per day,” he says.

Those spores normally don’t harm us. Aspergillus infections were typically considered a threat only to immunocompromised patients, such as those undergoing cancer treatments or bone marrow transplants. But in 2009, doctors saw a spike in previously healthy people who succumbed to Aspergillus. They had all first become sick with a new, pandemic strain of the influenza virus H1N1.

For reasons scientists still don’t completely understand, influenza infections appear to make the fungus more deadly in people with a seemingly normal immune system. In a 2016 review of 57 cases of Aspergillus infections in influenza patients reported since 1963, Nancy Crum-Cianflone, an infectious disease specialist at Scripps Mercy Hospital, found that about half of the co-infected patients died.

Now, something similar may be happening with COVID-19. Just as H1N1 was a severe strain of influenza, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an especially dangerous form of coronavirus, Crum-Cianflone says. That could help explain why it leaves COVID-19 patients vulnerable to new threats.

Data on Aspergillus infections in people with COVID-19 are still sparse, but case reports point to worrying trends. One study from Germany found that one-quarter of critically ill COVID-19 patients also had Aspergillus infections. Another study of COVID-19 patients on ventilators found probable Aspergillus in one-third of them.

It's not uncommon for COVID-19 patients to be infected with other harmful microbes. But Aspergillus may be the deadliest threat among them, says Adilia Warris, a medical mycologist at the University of Exeter. She points to a recent study of 186 COVID-19 patients from around the world who also had Aspergillus. It found that slightly more than 50% of them died, and roughly one-third of those deaths were linked to Aspergillus infections.

Thompson estimates that anywhere between 2% and 10% of severely ill COVID-19 patients at his hospital also have an Aspergillus infection. It’s obviously a minority of patients,” he says. But the complications of a secondary infection are generally pretty substantial.”

Doctors say there are a few reasons why having COVID-19 might be an especially strong risk factor for an Aspergillus infection. One is that while COVID-19 can send parts of the immune system into overdrive, it also depletes certain immune cells, leaving a patient less able to fight off other infections. The extreme damage to cells lining the lung also impairs the organ’s ability to clear out respiratory pathogens like Aspergillus, Thompson says.

The way physicians treat COVID-19 could also heighten the risk of an Aspergillus infection. The steroid dexamethasone, shown to improve survival rates among severely ill COVID-19 patients, calms an overactive immune response that can lead to dangerous inflammation and organ damage. But immunosuppressive steroids are a double-edged sword, Crum-Cianflone says, leaving the door open to other infections. A recent observational study of four COVID-19 patients with likely Aspergillus infections noted that three of them had received higher steroid doses than was recommended—all of them died.

If doctors could easily identify Aspergillus infections, available antifungal drugs could fight them. But because the fungus can cause nonspecific symptoms such as coughing and shortness of breath that are already common in COVID-19 patients, doctors don't always look for it. A bronchoscopy, in which doctors snake a tube from the nose or mouth into the lungs, is the best way of taking lung samples for analysis. But the procedure isn’t typically done on COVID-19 patients for fear of spreading viral particles. And even a positive test may not mean the fungus is doing damage; Aspergillus can also be present in the lungs as a harmless colonizer.

As a preventive measure, Crum-Cianflone has begun giving severely ill COVID-19 patients antifungal drugs after their third week of hospitalization, even if they haven’t tested positive for Aspergillus. But even that strategy has risks. Overusing these compounds could lead to drug-resistant strains of Aspergillus becoming more common, Warris notes.

Recently, in The Lancet, an international group of physicians and medical mycology societies laid out recommendations for diagnosing Aspergillus infections in COVID-19 patients, including doing lung imaging scans and taking samples from the lungs at regular interval for testing. The hope is that the guidelines will help COVID-19 doctors know whether they’re battling one deadly pathogen, or two.    

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/common-fungus-emerges-threat-hospitalized-covid-19-patients

Norwegian Cruises asks CDC to allow trips from US in July

 The Norwegian Cruise Line is seeking permission to resume trips from U.S. ports on July 4, requiring passengers and crew members to be vaccinated against COVID-19 at least two weeks before the trip.

The Miami company said its precautions go well beyond steps taken by others in the travel and leisure industry that have already reopened, including airlines, hotel, restaurants and sporting events.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd plans to begin U.S. sailings at 60% of capacity and raise that to 80% in August and 100% in September. Norwegian also operates Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises.

Company shares jumped 6% Monday and pulled the shares of rival cruise lines hire as well. Shares Carnival Corp. and Royal Caribbean Group gained nearly 5% and more than 3%, respectively.

CEO Frank Del Rio detailed the request in a letter to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC has blocked cruise ships from U.S. ports with a no-sail order since March 2020, after outbreaks on several ships around the world.

Still, Walensky urged caution and said she would “advocate against general travel overall” given the rising number of infections.

The CDC said Monday that it “is committed to working with the cruise industry and seaport partners to resume cruising” following a phased approach. “Cruising safely and responsibly during a global pandemic is difficult,” especially with concern over new variants of COVID-19, the agency added.

https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/norwegian-cruises-asks-cdc-trips-us-july-76880768

UK health regulator may restrict AstraZeneca shot for younger people: Channel 4

 Britain’s health regulator is considering a proposal to restrict the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in younger people over concerns about very rare blood clots, Channel 4 News reported on Monday.

“Two senior sources have told this programme that while the data is still unclear there are growing arguments to justify offering younger people - below the age of 30 at the very least - a different vaccine,” the broadcaster reported.

The UK’s regulator, the MHRA, has previously said the benefits of the vaccine in the prevention of COVID-19 far outweigh any possible risk of blood clots.

The MHRA did not immediately respond to a comment on the Channel 4 report.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec-idUSKBN2BS1QE