Update on COVID-19 Myocarditis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) gained worldwide attention at the end of 2019 when it was identified to cause severe respiratory distress syndrome. While it primarily affects the respiratory system, we now have evidence that it affects multiple organ systems in the human body. Cardiac manifestations may include myocarditis, life threatening arrhythmias, acute coronary syndrome, systolic heart failure, and cardiogenic shock. Myocarditis is increasingly recognized as a complication of Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) and may result from direct viral injury or from exaggerated host immune response. The diagnosis is established similar to other etiologies, and is based on detailed history, clinical exam, laboratory findings and non-invasive imaging studies. When available, cardiac MRI is the preferred imaging modality. Endomyocardial biopsy may be performed if the diagnosis remains uncertain. Current management is mainly supportive with the potential addition of interventions recommended for severe COVID-19 disease, such as remdesivir, steroids, and convalescent plasma. In the setting of cardiogenic shock and refractory, life-threatening arrhythmias that persist despite medical therapy, advanced mechanical circulatory support devices should be considered. Ultimately, early recognition and aggressive intervention are key factors in reducing morbidity and mortality. Our management strategy is expected to evolve further as we learn more about COVID-19 disease and the associated cardiac complications.

Clinical and social determinants of health features of SARS-CoV-2 infection among Black and Caribbean Hispanic patients with heart failure: The SCAN-MP Study.

Patients with heart failure (HF) often have multiple chronic conditions and are at increased risk for severe disease and mortality when infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Furthermore, disparities in outcomes with COVID-19 have been associated with both racial/ethnic identity but also social determinants of health. Among older, urban-dwelling, minority patients with HF, we sought to characterize medical and non-medical factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with HF living in Boston and New York City over 60 years of age participating in the Screening for Cardiac Amyloidosis with Nuclear Imaging (SCAN-MP) study between 12/1/2019 and 10/15/2021 (n = 180) were tested for nucleocapsid antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and queried for symptomatic infection with PCR verification. Baseline testing included the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), assessment of health literacy, biochemical, functional capacity, echocardiography, and a novel survey tool that determined living conditions, perceived risk of infection, and attitudes towards COVID-19 mitigation. The association of infection with prevalent socio-economic conditions was assessed by the area deprivation index (ADI). There were 50 overall cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection (28%) including 40 demonstrating antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (indicative of prior infection) and 10 positive PCR tests. There was no overlap between these groups. The first documented case from New York City indicated infection prior to January 17, 2020. Among active smokers, none tested positive for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (0 (0%) vs. 20 (15%), p = 0.004) vs. non-smokers. Cases were more likely to be taking ACE-inhibitors/ARBs compared to non-cases (78% vs 62%, p = 0.04). Over a mean follow-up of 9.6 months, there were 6 total deaths (3.3%) all unrelated to COVID-19. Death and hospitalizations (n = 84) were not associated with incident (PCR tested) or prior (antibody) SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no difference in age, co-morbidities, living conditions, attitudes toward mitigation, health literacy, or ADI between those with and without infection. SARS-CoV-2 infection was common among older, minority patients with HF living in New York City and Boston, with evidence of infection documented in early January 2020. Health literacy and ADI were not associated with infection, and there was no increased mortality or hospitalizations among those infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the abundant research on financial conflict of interest regarding provider behaviour and the interpretation and results of research, little is known about the relation between these conflicts in academia and the trajectory of one's academic career. We performed a study to examine whether the presence of financial ties to drug makers among academics is associated with research productivity. METHODS: We hand-searched 3 high-impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and The Lancet) and 3 high-impact oncology journals that publish original science (The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology and Journal of the National Cancer Institute) to identify physicians based in the United States who were first or last authors on original papers on hematologic or oncologic topics that appeared in 2015. We ascertained their publication history from Scopus and their personal and research payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Web site (2013-2015). The strength of association between general (personal) financial payments from 2013 to 2015 and publications from 2013 to 2016 was determined by multivariate regression. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 435 physicians who had authored a median of 140 publications, earning a median h-index of 36 and a median of 5639 citations. The median total of general payments from 2013 to 2015 was US$3282 (range $0-$3.4 million), and the median amount of research payments was US$3500 (range $0-$23 million). General payments were associated with contemporary publications, with an increase of 1.99 papers (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 2.9) per $10 000 in payments. This association persisted in multivariate analysis after adjustment for prior publications, seniority and research payments (0.84 papers [95% CI 0.15 to 1.5] per $10 000 in payments). INTERPRETATION: The findings suggest that there is a positive association between personal payments from drug makers and publications, and that this association persists after adjustment for prior publications, time since medical school graduation and research payments.

Discordant response of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) levels to monoclonal antibodies targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials testing proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have demonstrated an unanticipated but significant lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a))-lowering effect, on the order of 25% to 30%. Although the 50% to 60% reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C) achieved by PCSK9i is mediated through its effect on LDL receptor (LDLR) preservation, the mechanism for Lp(a) lowering is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the degree of concordance between LDL-C and Lp(a) lowering because of PCSK9i in a standard of care patient cohort. METHODS: Participants were selected from our Center for Preventive Cardiology, an outpatient referral center in a tertiary academic medical center. Subjects were included in this study if they had (1) at least 1 measurement of LDL-C and Lp(a) before and after initiation of the PCSK9i; (2) baseline Lp(a) > 10 mg/dL; and (3) continued adherence to PCSK9i therapy. They were excluded if (1) they were undergoing LDL apheresis; (2) pre- or post-PCSK9i LDL-C or Lp(a) laboratory values were censored; or (3) subjects discontinued other lipid-modifying therapies. In total, 103 subjects were identified as taking a PCSK9i and 26 met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Concordant response to therapy was defined as an LDL-C reduction >35% and an Lp(a) reduction >10%. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 26 subjects (15 females, 11 males, mean age 63 ± 12 years). Baseline mean LDL-C and median Lp(a) levels were 167.4 ± 72 mg/dL and 81 mg/dL (interquartile range 38-136 mg/dL), respectively. The average percent reductions in LDL-C and Lp(a) were 52.8% (47.0-58.6) and 20.2% (12.2-28.1). The correlation between %LDL and %Lp(a) reduction was moderate, with a Spearman's correlation of 0.56 (P < .01). All subjects except for 1 had a protocol-appropriate LDL-C response to therapy. However, only 16 of the 26 (62%; 95% confidence interval 41%-82%) subjects had a protocol-concordant Lp(a) response. Although some subjects demonstrated negligible Lp(a) reduction associated with PCSK9i, there were some whose Lp(a) decreased as much as 60%. CONCLUSIONS: In this standard-of-care setting, we demonstrate moderate correlation but large discordance (∼40%) in these 2 lipid fractions in response to PCSK9i. The results suggest that pathways beyond the LDLR are responsible for Lp(a) lowering and indicate that PCSK9i have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) in select patients, although confirmation in larger multicenter studies is required.