MDedge Cardiology

Highlights of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2022 annual meeting include new data on weight loss with the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide and on the effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure in people with diabetes, as well as updated guidelines for type 2 diabetes management.

The EASD meeting will take place Sept. 19-23 in Stockholm. It will be the first in-person meeting since 2019 but will also feature live-streamed content for participants around the world.

“The EASD congress will cover all the different areas and aspects of diabetes research – clinical, basic, epidemiologic, and psychological,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, told this news organization.

What attendees should expect, said Del Prato of the University of Pisa (Italy), “is the pleasure to be able to participate in person at a meeting and get useful information, not only in terms of the knowledge and intellectual aspects of diabetes, but also something that can be implemented the following day in their daily clinical activities.”  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, added: “I think meeting attendees will really be able to get the absolutely latest developments in all the areas that are relevant to diabetes treatments. It’s the best way to keep yourself up to date.”

This year, in particular, there’s a focus on past, present, and future trends in type 2 diabetes management, along with the co-occurring conditions of obesity, heart failure, and metabolic fatty liver disease.  
 

DELIVER: The diabetes side

On Sept. 22, new data will be presented from the DELIVER trial on the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, comparing data for participants with diabetes, prediabetes, and normoglycemia.

Primary results from DELIVER were presented Aug. 26 at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 in Barcelona and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results showed that dapagliflozin benefits patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, as previously demonstrated in those with reduced ejection fraction in the DAPA-HF trial.

“This information is quite important and is becoming of major interest in the field of diabetes,” Dr. Del Prato said, adding that a related joint EASD/ESC symposium will take place the next morning, on Sept. 23, entitled, “New perspectives on heart function and failure in diabetes.”

“So, within the congress, you get the background, pathophysiology, the diagnostic aspects, and the results of the effect of dapagliflozin on those individuals.”

Dr. Rydén commented, “I think this underlines how important it is for diabetologists to screen our patients better for heart failure because we can actually treat them now.”

However, Dr. Rydén of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also cautioned about use of SGLT2 inhibitors in people with diabetes who use insulin, given the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. “These drugs have side effects and you have to be wary who you prescribe them to. For those on multiple daily [insulin] injections, the side effects probably outweigh the benefits.”
 

Tirzepatide, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes remission

On Sept. 21, a symposium will provide new data for the dual glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States in May with the brand name Mounjaro. The agent is now being studied as an obesity treatment.

Data from the SURMOUNT-1 trial presented at the ADA meeting in June showed the drug produced “unprecedented” weight loss of up to 22.5%.

At EASD, those findings will be reviewed and new data presented on morbidity and mortality, along with a new commentary. The degree of weight loss seen with this new twincretin has furthered discussion about the concept of remission in type 2 diabetes, Dr. Rydén noted. That will also be the subject of the Diabetologia symposium on Sept. 21, entitled, “Remission of type 2 diabetes – fact or fiction?”

Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Rydén said: “It’s amazing, the most powerful antiobesity drug we have at our disposal. These drugs slow gastric emptying and have other beneficial effects. … We’re now closing in on drugs that produce more than 15% weight loss. That appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ where you can achieve type 2 diabetes remission.” He pointed to a symposium sponsored by The Lancet on this topic at last year’s EASD meeting.

“I think what we want with our drugs is not to treat but actually to combat type 2 diabetes and really to achieve remission. Of course, if you’ve had it for many decades that might be impossible, but we know that particularly in the first 5-10 years it’s very important to have good glucose control and we know we can also achieve remission.”

Dr. Del Prato noted the importance of weight reduction at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis will be emphasized in the ADA/EASD consensus document on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, to be presented in its final form on Sept. 23.

“I think we’ll be learning more about potential remission in the future, both because of metabolic surgery and agents like tirzepatide. The reduction in body weight that can be achieved [with these newer drugs], or that has been reported so far, is the closest to what can be obtained with metabolic surgery. I think there will be more and more information and a lot of discussion about this, and of course about the definition of remission and what to do after remission has occurred,” Dr. Del Prato said.  

The revised ADA/EASD consensus document is expected to endorse weight loss as a “co-primary goal” of care for those without cardiorenal disease, along with early initiation of combination therapies – for example, taking two drugs immediately upon diagnosis, rather than just metformin – as opposed to the prior stepwise approach. The document will also cover use of newer glucose-lowering therapies, surgery, and behavioral interventions.  

The key is a holistic approach, Dr. Del Prato said. “Of course, glucose control is important, but it’s not the only thing. The heterogeneity of the population with diabetes is also important. Some may already have microvascular complications, kidney dysfunction, are more or less obese, and older or younger. We need to keep these differences in mind to provide more and more individualized treatment.”

Related to that, he noted, will be a joint EASD/ADA symposium on Sept. 19, entitled, “Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: How far can we get?”
 

COVID-19 and diabetes, UKPDS, type 1 diabetes, and much more

As always, there’s a whole lot more. On Sept. 21, there will be a symposium on COVID-19 and diabetes.

Another, on diabetes technology, has a somewhat cautionary theme: “A new hope (Star Wars) or strange new worlds (Star Trek): Submerging diabetes into emerging technologies.” One of the speakers will address the question: “Are we becoming robots? Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for everyone with type 1 diabetes: Strengths and limitations.” And this year’s EASD/JDRF symposium topic will be prevention of type 1 diabetes.

Yet another symposium on Sept. 21 will present 44-year follow-up data from the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), including an economic analysis and a look at dementia outcomes. “It’s a historical thing. This big trial represents a gold mine of information,” Dr. Del Prato commented.

On Sept. 22, new data will be presented for the investigational once-weekly insulins during a symposium entitled, “Re-inventing the insulin experience: Exploring the prospects of once-weekly insulins.”

And lest anyone was thinking of leaving the conference early, there’s a full agenda on Sept. 23, including symposia on diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes in old age, dietary management, and the role of primary care, among others. There will also be 12 separate oral presentation sessions that day.

Overall, the meeting will reflect the multidisciplinary direction the field is headed, Dr. Rydén said.

“We’re still in an era of medicine where a lot of things happen every year. Now we have the next generation of drugs that are coming that combine many areas of treatment – obesity, cardiology, and nephrology. So, we’re integrating. The future is integrating the diabetes world with our friends in other areas of clinical medicine.”

Dr. Del Prato has reported being a consultant, advisory board member, and/or lecturer for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Rydén has reported receiving lecture fees from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and serving on advisory boards for MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca.

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

Highlights of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2022 annual meeting include new data on weight loss with the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide and on the effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure in people with diabetes, as well as updated guidelines for type 2 diabetes management.

The EASD meeting will take place Sept. 19-23 in Stockholm. It will be the first in-person meeting since 2019 but will also feature live-streamed content for participants around the world.

“The EASD congress will cover all the different areas and aspects of diabetes research – clinical, basic, epidemiologic, and psychological,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, told this news organization.

What attendees should expect, said Del Prato of the University of Pisa (Italy), “is the pleasure to be able to participate in person at a meeting and get useful information, not only in terms of the knowledge and intellectual aspects of diabetes, but also something that can be implemented the following day in their daily clinical activities.”  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, added: “I think meeting attendees will really be able to get the absolutely latest developments in all the areas that are relevant to diabetes treatments. It’s the best way to keep yourself up to date.”

This year, in particular, there’s a focus on past, present, and future trends in type 2 diabetes management, along with the co-occurring conditions of obesity, heart failure, and metabolic fatty liver disease.  
 

DELIVER: The diabetes side

On Sept. 22, new data will be presented from the DELIVER trial on the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, comparing data for participants with diabetes, prediabetes, and normoglycemia.

Primary results from DELIVER were presented Aug. 26 at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 in Barcelona and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results showed that dapagliflozin benefits patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, as previously demonstrated in those with reduced ejection fraction in the DAPA-HF trial.

“This information is quite important and is becoming of major interest in the field of diabetes,” Dr. Del Prato said, adding that a related joint EASD/ESC symposium will take place the next morning, on Sept. 23, entitled, “New perspectives on heart function and failure in diabetes.”

“So, within the congress, you get the background, pathophysiology, the diagnostic aspects, and the results of the effect of dapagliflozin on those individuals.”

Dr. Rydén commented, “I think this underlines how important it is for diabetologists to screen our patients better for heart failure because we can actually treat them now.”

However, Dr. Rydén of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also cautioned about use of SGLT2 inhibitors in people with diabetes who use insulin, given the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. “These drugs have side effects and you have to be wary who you prescribe them to. For those on multiple daily [insulin] injections, the side effects probably outweigh the benefits.”
 

Tirzepatide, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes remission

On Sept. 21, a symposium will provide new data for the dual glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States in May with the brand name Mounjaro. The agent is now being studied as an obesity treatment.

Data from the SURMOUNT-1 trial presented at the ADA meeting in June showed the drug produced “unprecedented” weight loss of up to 22.5%.

At EASD, those findings will be reviewed and new data presented on morbidity and mortality, along with a new commentary. The degree of weight loss seen with this new twincretin has furthered discussion about the concept of remission in type 2 diabetes, Dr. Rydén noted. That will also be the subject of the Diabetologia symposium on Sept. 21, entitled, “Remission of type 2 diabetes – fact or fiction?”

Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Rydén said: “It’s amazing, the most powerful antiobesity drug we have at our disposal. These drugs slow gastric emptying and have other beneficial effects. … We’re now closing in on drugs that produce more than 15% weight loss. That appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ where you can achieve type 2 diabetes remission.” He pointed to a symposium sponsored by The Lancet on this topic at last year’s EASD meeting.

“I think what we want with our drugs is not to treat but actually to combat type 2 diabetes and really to achieve remission. Of course, if you’ve had it for many decades that might be impossible, but we know that particularly in the first 5-10 years it’s very important to have good glucose control and we know we can also achieve remission.”

Dr. Del Prato noted the importance of weight reduction at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis will be emphasized in the ADA/EASD consensus document on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, to be presented in its final form on Sept. 23.

“I think we’ll be learning more about potential remission in the future, both because of metabolic surgery and agents like tirzepatide. The reduction in body weight that can be achieved [with these newer drugs], or that has been reported so far, is the closest to what can be obtained with metabolic surgery. I think there will be more and more information and a lot of discussion about this, and of course about the definition of remission and what to do after remission has occurred,” Dr. Del Prato said.  

The revised ADA/EASD consensus document is expected to endorse weight loss as a “co-primary goal” of care for those without cardiorenal disease, along with early initiation of combination therapies – for example, taking two drugs immediately upon diagnosis, rather than just metformin – as opposed to the prior stepwise approach. The document will also cover use of newer glucose-lowering therapies, surgery, and behavioral interventions.  

The key is a holistic approach, Dr. Del Prato said. “Of course, glucose control is important, but it’s not the only thing. The heterogeneity of the population with diabetes is also important. Some may already have microvascular complications, kidney dysfunction, are more or less obese, and older or younger. We need to keep these differences in mind to provide more and more individualized treatment.”

Related to that, he noted, will be a joint EASD/ADA symposium on Sept. 19, entitled, “Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: How far can we get?”
 

COVID-19 and diabetes, UKPDS, type 1 diabetes, and much more

As always, there’s a whole lot more. On Sept. 21, there will be a symposium on COVID-19 and diabetes.

Another, on diabetes technology, has a somewhat cautionary theme: “A new hope (Star Wars) or strange new worlds (Star Trek): Submerging diabetes into emerging technologies.” One of the speakers will address the question: “Are we becoming robots? Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for everyone with type 1 diabetes: Strengths and limitations.” And this year’s EASD/JDRF symposium topic will be prevention of type 1 diabetes.

Yet another symposium on Sept. 21 will present 44-year follow-up data from the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), including an economic analysis and a look at dementia outcomes. “It’s a historical thing. This big trial represents a gold mine of information,” Dr. Del Prato commented.

On Sept. 22, new data will be presented for the investigational once-weekly insulins during a symposium entitled, “Re-inventing the insulin experience: Exploring the prospects of once-weekly insulins.”

And lest anyone was thinking of leaving the conference early, there’s a full agenda on Sept. 23, including symposia on diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes in old age, dietary management, and the role of primary care, among others. There will also be 12 separate oral presentation sessions that day.

Overall, the meeting will reflect the multidisciplinary direction the field is headed, Dr. Rydén said.

“We’re still in an era of medicine where a lot of things happen every year. Now we have the next generation of drugs that are coming that combine many areas of treatment – obesity, cardiology, and nephrology. So, we’re integrating. The future is integrating the diabetes world with our friends in other areas of clinical medicine.”

Dr. Del Prato has reported being a consultant, advisory board member, and/or lecturer for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Rydén has reported receiving lecture fees from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and serving on advisory boards for MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca.

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

Highlights of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2022 annual meeting include new data on weight loss with the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide and on the effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure in people with diabetes, as well as updated guidelines for type 2 diabetes management.

The EASD meeting will take place Sept. 19-23 in Stockholm. It will be the first in-person meeting since 2019 but will also feature live-streamed content for participants around the world.

“The EASD congress will cover all the different areas and aspects of diabetes research – clinical, basic, epidemiologic, and psychological,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, told this news organization.

What attendees should expect, said Del Prato of the University of Pisa (Italy), “is the pleasure to be able to participate in person at a meeting and get useful information, not only in terms of the knowledge and intellectual aspects of diabetes, but also something that can be implemented the following day in their daily clinical activities.”  

EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, added: “I think meeting attendees will really be able to get the absolutely latest developments in all the areas that are relevant to diabetes treatments. It’s the best way to keep yourself up to date.”

This year, in particular, there’s a focus on past, present, and future trends in type 2 diabetes management, along with the co-occurring conditions of obesity, heart failure, and metabolic fatty liver disease.  
 

DELIVER: The diabetes side

On Sept. 22, new data will be presented from the DELIVER trial on the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, comparing data for participants with diabetes, prediabetes, and normoglycemia.

Primary results from DELIVER were presented Aug. 26 at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 in Barcelona and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results showed that dapagliflozin benefits patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, as previously demonstrated in those with reduced ejection fraction in the DAPA-HF trial.

“This information is quite important and is becoming of major interest in the field of diabetes,” Dr. Del Prato said, adding that a related joint EASD/ESC symposium will take place the next morning, on Sept. 23, entitled, “New perspectives on heart function and failure in diabetes.”

“So, within the congress, you get the background, pathophysiology, the diagnostic aspects, and the results of the effect of dapagliflozin on those individuals.”

Dr. Rydén commented, “I think this underlines how important it is for diabetologists to screen our patients better for heart failure because we can actually treat them now.”

However, Dr. Rydén of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also cautioned about use of SGLT2 inhibitors in people with diabetes who use insulin, given the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. “These drugs have side effects and you have to be wary who you prescribe them to. For those on multiple daily [insulin] injections, the side effects probably outweigh the benefits.”
 

Tirzepatide, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes remission

On Sept. 21, a symposium will provide new data for the dual glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States in May with the brand name Mounjaro. The agent is now being studied as an obesity treatment.

Data from the SURMOUNT-1 trial presented at the ADA meeting in June showed the drug produced “unprecedented” weight loss of up to 22.5%.

At EASD, those findings will be reviewed and new data presented on morbidity and mortality, along with a new commentary. The degree of weight loss seen with this new twincretin has furthered discussion about the concept of remission in type 2 diabetes, Dr. Rydén noted. That will also be the subject of the Diabetologia symposium on Sept. 21, entitled, “Remission of type 2 diabetes – fact or fiction?”

Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Rydén said: “It’s amazing, the most powerful antiobesity drug we have at our disposal. These drugs slow gastric emptying and have other beneficial effects. … We’re now closing in on drugs that produce more than 15% weight loss. That appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ where you can achieve type 2 diabetes remission.” He pointed to a symposium sponsored by The Lancet on this topic at last year’s EASD meeting.

“I think what we want with our drugs is not to treat but actually to combat type 2 diabetes and really to achieve remission. Of course, if you’ve had it for many decades that might be impossible, but we know that particularly in the first 5-10 years it’s very important to have good glucose control and we know we can also achieve remission.”

Dr. Del Prato noted the importance of weight reduction at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis will be emphasized in the ADA/EASD consensus document on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, to be presented in its final form on Sept. 23.

“I think we’ll be learning more about potential remission in the future, both because of metabolic surgery and agents like tirzepatide. The reduction in body weight that can be achieved [with these newer drugs], or that has been reported so far, is the closest to what can be obtained with metabolic surgery. I think there will be more and more information and a lot of discussion about this, and of course about the definition of remission and what to do after remission has occurred,” Dr. Del Prato said.  

The revised ADA/EASD consensus document is expected to endorse weight loss as a “co-primary goal” of care for those without cardiorenal disease, along with early initiation of combination therapies – for example, taking two drugs immediately upon diagnosis, rather than just metformin – as opposed to the prior stepwise approach. The document will also cover use of newer glucose-lowering therapies, surgery, and behavioral interventions.  

The key is a holistic approach, Dr. Del Prato said. “Of course, glucose control is important, but it’s not the only thing. The heterogeneity of the population with diabetes is also important. Some may already have microvascular complications, kidney dysfunction, are more or less obese, and older or younger. We need to keep these differences in mind to provide more and more individualized treatment.”

Related to that, he noted, will be a joint EASD/ADA symposium on Sept. 19, entitled, “Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: How far can we get?”
 

COVID-19 and diabetes, UKPDS, type 1 diabetes, and much more

As always, there’s a whole lot more. On Sept. 21, there will be a symposium on COVID-19 and diabetes.

Another, on diabetes technology, has a somewhat cautionary theme: “A new hope (Star Wars) or strange new worlds (Star Trek): Submerging diabetes into emerging technologies.” One of the speakers will address the question: “Are we becoming robots? Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for everyone with type 1 diabetes: Strengths and limitations.” And this year’s EASD/JDRF symposium topic will be prevention of type 1 diabetes.

Yet another symposium on Sept. 21 will present 44-year follow-up data from the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), including an economic analysis and a look at dementia outcomes. “It’s a historical thing. This big trial represents a gold mine of information,” Dr. Del Prato commented.

On Sept. 22, new data will be presented for the investigational once-weekly insulins during a symposium entitled, “Re-inventing the insulin experience: Exploring the prospects of once-weekly insulins.”

And lest anyone was thinking of leaving the conference early, there’s a full agenda on Sept. 23, including symposia on diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes in old age, dietary management, and the role of primary care, among others. There will also be 12 separate oral presentation sessions that day.

Overall, the meeting will reflect the multidisciplinary direction the field is headed, Dr. Rydén said.

“We’re still in an era of medicine where a lot of things happen every year. Now we have the next generation of drugs that are coming that combine many areas of treatment – obesity, cardiology, and nephrology. So, we’re integrating. The future is integrating the diabetes world with our friends in other areas of clinical medicine.”

Dr. Del Prato has reported being a consultant, advisory board member, and/or lecturer for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Rydén has reported receiving lecture fees from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and serving on advisory boards for MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Even a little walking may help avert serious illness and death, and a brisk stroll may be especially beneficial, according to a study of nearly 80,000 middle-aged and older adults.

Each additional 2,000 steps per day – up to 10,000 – was associated with 8% to 11% fewer deaths and less heart disease and cancer, the researchers found. Walking quickly had an even stronger link to lower health risks.

The findings were reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. In a separate paper, published in JAMA Neurology, the researchers reported associations between walking and reduced risk of dementia.
 

Moving faster provides a health ‘bonus’

The findings expand on evidence in smaller studies of middle-aged individuals and older women that suggested health benefits from covering less than the widely promoted target of 10,000 steps a day.

The new study supports the ideas that “every step counts” and moving faster provides a health “bonus,” said one of its co-lead authors, Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and a senior researcher in health at the University of Cadiz, Spain.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz and his coauthors analyzed median daily step counts for 78,500 adults aged 40-79 years in the U.K. Biobank database who agreed to wear an accelerometer for 1 week. Participants’ average age was 61. Fifty-five percent were women and 97% were White.

Steps were categorized as “incidental,” defined as a pace of less than 40 per minute, and “purposeful,” ones taken at the pace of 40 or more per minute. Researchers also calculated peak 30-minute cadence, the average of an individual’s 30 most active minutes in a day.

Participants’ health records were reviewed after 7 years. Each additional 2,000 steps taken was associated with lower all-cause mortality (mean rate of change [MRC] in the hazard ratio, –0.08; 95% confidence interval, –0.11 to –0.06); cardiovascular mortality (MRC, –0.10; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06), and cancer mortality (MRC, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06).

Similar incremental reductions were observed in the incidence of heart disease, defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; and a composite cancer outcome of 13 sites shown to be associated with low physical activity.

Both incidental and purposeful steps were linked to lower rates of mortality and disease. Particularly encouraging, the researchers said, was the benefit associated with incidental steps, which might be more feasible for some individuals than a planned walk.

The association with better outcomes was especially strong for peak-30 cadence, with individuals in the top fifth of intensity having a 34% lower mortality rate compared with those in the bottom fifth – an observation that researchers wrote “reflects the importance of the natural best effort relative to the individual’s capability.”

The analysis adjusted for a variety of factors including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol use, fruit and vegetable consumption, medication use, family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, and sleep quality. It also excluded participants who had deaths and illnesses within 2 years of a step assessment to minimize the problem of reverse causation, in which existing health problems cause participants to move less.
 

Data contribute evidence toward step count recommendations

The data are observational and do not prove cause and effect, the researchers noted. Still, the authors said the study “contributes critical evidence toward step count–based recommendations” for physical activity.

Guidelines of the United States and the World Health Organization recommend 150 minutes of moderately intense activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity weekly plus strength training twice a week.

Given the proliferation of activity trackers in phones and watches, recommendations based on steps could be especially useful for individuals who don’t intentionally record their physical activity, the researchers wrote.

“It’s nice to have a study that puts some science behind steps counts,” cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University, and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, said of the findings.

Particularly important, said Dr. Goldberg, who was not involved in the study, is the lack of a minimum threshold for health benefits, since the 10,000-step target may be daunting for some individuals.

Only one in five participants in this latest study achieved 10,000 steps per day, according to the paper.

The authors wrote that promotion of lower step targets “may provide a more realistic and achievable goal for the general adult population,” and longevity gains “may be maximized simply by shifting away from the least-active end of the step-count distribution.”

Dr. Goldberg put it this way: “Take a walk. Try to aspire to 10,000 steps. But if you can only do 6,000 or 8,000, you get benefit there, too.”

Cathy Handy Marshall, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the new study, said the findings can be used to guide “exercise prescriptions,” but more research is needed to tailor recommendations, particularly for individuals who cannot achieve high step counts.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz said the findings need to be replicated in other populations.

The study authors, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Handy Marshall reported no relevant competing interests.

Even a little walking may help avert serious illness and death, and a brisk stroll may be especially beneficial, according to a study of nearly 80,000 middle-aged and older adults.

Each additional 2,000 steps per day – up to 10,000 – was associated with 8% to 11% fewer deaths and less heart disease and cancer, the researchers found. Walking quickly had an even stronger link to lower health risks.

The findings were reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. In a separate paper, published in JAMA Neurology, the researchers reported associations between walking and reduced risk of dementia.
 

Moving faster provides a health ‘bonus’

The findings expand on evidence in smaller studies of middle-aged individuals and older women that suggested health benefits from covering less than the widely promoted target of 10,000 steps a day.

The new study supports the ideas that “every step counts” and moving faster provides a health “bonus,” said one of its co-lead authors, Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and a senior researcher in health at the University of Cadiz, Spain.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz and his coauthors analyzed median daily step counts for 78,500 adults aged 40-79 years in the U.K. Biobank database who agreed to wear an accelerometer for 1 week. Participants’ average age was 61. Fifty-five percent were women and 97% were White.

Steps were categorized as “incidental,” defined as a pace of less than 40 per minute, and “purposeful,” ones taken at the pace of 40 or more per minute. Researchers also calculated peak 30-minute cadence, the average of an individual’s 30 most active minutes in a day.

Participants’ health records were reviewed after 7 years. Each additional 2,000 steps taken was associated with lower all-cause mortality (mean rate of change [MRC] in the hazard ratio, –0.08; 95% confidence interval, –0.11 to –0.06); cardiovascular mortality (MRC, –0.10; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06), and cancer mortality (MRC, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06).

Similar incremental reductions were observed in the incidence of heart disease, defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; and a composite cancer outcome of 13 sites shown to be associated with low physical activity.

Both incidental and purposeful steps were linked to lower rates of mortality and disease. Particularly encouraging, the researchers said, was the benefit associated with incidental steps, which might be more feasible for some individuals than a planned walk.

The association with better outcomes was especially strong for peak-30 cadence, with individuals in the top fifth of intensity having a 34% lower mortality rate compared with those in the bottom fifth – an observation that researchers wrote “reflects the importance of the natural best effort relative to the individual’s capability.”

The analysis adjusted for a variety of factors including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol use, fruit and vegetable consumption, medication use, family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, and sleep quality. It also excluded participants who had deaths and illnesses within 2 years of a step assessment to minimize the problem of reverse causation, in which existing health problems cause participants to move less.
 

Data contribute evidence toward step count recommendations

The data are observational and do not prove cause and effect, the researchers noted. Still, the authors said the study “contributes critical evidence toward step count–based recommendations” for physical activity.

Guidelines of the United States and the World Health Organization recommend 150 minutes of moderately intense activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity weekly plus strength training twice a week.

Given the proliferation of activity trackers in phones and watches, recommendations based on steps could be especially useful for individuals who don’t intentionally record their physical activity, the researchers wrote.

“It’s nice to have a study that puts some science behind steps counts,” cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University, and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, said of the findings.

Particularly important, said Dr. Goldberg, who was not involved in the study, is the lack of a minimum threshold for health benefits, since the 10,000-step target may be daunting for some individuals.

Only one in five participants in this latest study achieved 10,000 steps per day, according to the paper.

The authors wrote that promotion of lower step targets “may provide a more realistic and achievable goal for the general adult population,” and longevity gains “may be maximized simply by shifting away from the least-active end of the step-count distribution.”

Dr. Goldberg put it this way: “Take a walk. Try to aspire to 10,000 steps. But if you can only do 6,000 or 8,000, you get benefit there, too.”

Cathy Handy Marshall, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the new study, said the findings can be used to guide “exercise prescriptions,” but more research is needed to tailor recommendations, particularly for individuals who cannot achieve high step counts.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz said the findings need to be replicated in other populations.

The study authors, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Handy Marshall reported no relevant competing interests.

Even a little walking may help avert serious illness and death, and a brisk stroll may be especially beneficial, according to a study of nearly 80,000 middle-aged and older adults.

Each additional 2,000 steps per day – up to 10,000 – was associated with 8% to 11% fewer deaths and less heart disease and cancer, the researchers found. Walking quickly had an even stronger link to lower health risks.

The findings were reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. In a separate paper, published in JAMA Neurology, the researchers reported associations between walking and reduced risk of dementia.
 

Moving faster provides a health ‘bonus’

The findings expand on evidence in smaller studies of middle-aged individuals and older women that suggested health benefits from covering less than the widely promoted target of 10,000 steps a day.

The new study supports the ideas that “every step counts” and moving faster provides a health “bonus,” said one of its co-lead authors, Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and a senior researcher in health at the University of Cadiz, Spain.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz and his coauthors analyzed median daily step counts for 78,500 adults aged 40-79 years in the U.K. Biobank database who agreed to wear an accelerometer for 1 week. Participants’ average age was 61. Fifty-five percent were women and 97% were White.

Steps were categorized as “incidental,” defined as a pace of less than 40 per minute, and “purposeful,” ones taken at the pace of 40 or more per minute. Researchers also calculated peak 30-minute cadence, the average of an individual’s 30 most active minutes in a day.

Participants’ health records were reviewed after 7 years. Each additional 2,000 steps taken was associated with lower all-cause mortality (mean rate of change [MRC] in the hazard ratio, –0.08; 95% confidence interval, –0.11 to –0.06); cardiovascular mortality (MRC, –0.10; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06), and cancer mortality (MRC, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06).

Similar incremental reductions were observed in the incidence of heart disease, defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; and a composite cancer outcome of 13 sites shown to be associated with low physical activity.

Both incidental and purposeful steps were linked to lower rates of mortality and disease. Particularly encouraging, the researchers said, was the benefit associated with incidental steps, which might be more feasible for some individuals than a planned walk.

The association with better outcomes was especially strong for peak-30 cadence, with individuals in the top fifth of intensity having a 34% lower mortality rate compared with those in the bottom fifth – an observation that researchers wrote “reflects the importance of the natural best effort relative to the individual’s capability.”

The analysis adjusted for a variety of factors including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol use, fruit and vegetable consumption, medication use, family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, and sleep quality. It also excluded participants who had deaths and illnesses within 2 years of a step assessment to minimize the problem of reverse causation, in which existing health problems cause participants to move less.
 

Data contribute evidence toward step count recommendations

The data are observational and do not prove cause and effect, the researchers noted. Still, the authors said the study “contributes critical evidence toward step count–based recommendations” for physical activity.

Guidelines of the United States and the World Health Organization recommend 150 minutes of moderately intense activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity weekly plus strength training twice a week.

Given the proliferation of activity trackers in phones and watches, recommendations based on steps could be especially useful for individuals who don’t intentionally record their physical activity, the researchers wrote.

“It’s nice to have a study that puts some science behind steps counts,” cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University, and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, said of the findings.

Particularly important, said Dr. Goldberg, who was not involved in the study, is the lack of a minimum threshold for health benefits, since the 10,000-step target may be daunting for some individuals.

Only one in five participants in this latest study achieved 10,000 steps per day, according to the paper.

The authors wrote that promotion of lower step targets “may provide a more realistic and achievable goal for the general adult population,” and longevity gains “may be maximized simply by shifting away from the least-active end of the step-count distribution.”

Dr. Goldberg put it this way: “Take a walk. Try to aspire to 10,000 steps. But if you can only do 6,000 or 8,000, you get benefit there, too.”

Cathy Handy Marshall, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the new study, said the findings can be used to guide “exercise prescriptions,” but more research is needed to tailor recommendations, particularly for individuals who cannot achieve high step counts.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz said the findings need to be replicated in other populations.

The study authors, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Handy Marshall reported no relevant competing interests.

California and New York are on the cusp of going further than the Food and Drug Administration in restricting the sale of nonprescription diet pills to minors as pediatricians and public health advocates try to protect kids from extreme weight-loss gimmicks online.

A bill before Gov. Gavin Newsom would bar anyone under 18 in California from buying over-the-counter weight-loss supplements – whether online or in shops – without a prescription. A similar bill passed by New York lawmakers is on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk. Neither Democrat has indicated how he or she will act.

kaarsten/Thinkstock

If both bills are signed into law, proponents hope the momentum will build to restrict diet pill sales to children in more states. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Missouri have introduced similar bills and backers plan to continue their push next year.

Nearly 30 million people in the United States will have an eating disorder in their lifetime; 95% of them are aged between 12 and 25, according to Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. The hospital added that eating disorders pose the highest risk of mortality of any mental health disorder. And it has become easier than ever for minors to get pills that are sold online or on drugstore shelves. All dietary supplements, which include those for weight loss, accounted for nearly 35% of the $63 billion over-the-counter health products industry in 2021, according to Vision Research Reports, a market research firm.

Dietary supplements, which encompass a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are classified by the FDA as food and don’t undergo scientific and safety testing as prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines do.

Public health advocates want to keep weight-loss products – with ads that may promise to “Drop 5 pounds a week!” and pill names like Slim Sense – away from young people, particularly girls, since some research has linked some products to eating disorders. A study in the American Journal of Public Health, which followed more than 10,000 women aged 14-36 over 15 years, found that “those who used diet pills had more than 5 times higher adjusted odds of receiving an eating disorder diagnosis from a health care provider within 1-3 years than those who did not.”

Many pills have been found tainted with banned and dangerous ingredients that may cause cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and other ailments. For example, the FDA advised the public to avoid Slim Sense by Dr. Reade because it contains lorcaserin, which has been found to cause psychiatric disturbances and impairments in attention or memory. The FDA ordered it discontinued and the company couldn’t be reached for comment.

“Unscrupulous manufacturers are willing to take risks with consumers’ health – and they are lacing their products with illegal pharmaceuticals, banned pharmaceuticals, steroids, excessive stimulants, even experimental stimulants,” said S. Bryn Austin, ScD, founding director of the Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders, or STRIPED, which supports the restrictions. “Consumers have no idea that this is what’s in these types of products.”

STRIPED is a public health initiative based at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Boston Children’s Hospital.

An industry trade group, the Natural Products Association, disputes that diet pills cause eating disorders, citing the lack of consumer complaints to the FDA of adverse events from their members’ products. “According to FDA data, there is no association between the two,” said Kyle Turk, the association’s director of government affairs.

The association contends that its members adhere to safe manufacturing processes, random product testing, and appropriate marketing guidelines. Representatives also worry that if minors can’t buy supplements over the counter, they may buy them from “crooks” on the black market and undermine the integrity of the industry. Under the bills, minors purchasing weight-loss products must show identification along with a prescription.

Not all business groups oppose the ban. The American Herbal Products Association, a trade group representing dietary supplement manufacturers and retailers, dropped its opposition to California’s bill once it was amended to remove ingredient categories that are found in non-diet supplements and vitamins, according to Robert Marriott, director of regulatory affairs.

Children’s advocates have found worrisome trends among young people who envision their ideal body type based on what they see on social media. According to a study commissioned by Fairplay, a nonprofit that seeks to stop harmful marketing practices targeting children, kids as young as 9 were found to be following three or more eating disorder accounts on Instagram, while the median age was 19. The authors called it a “pro–eating disorder bubble.”

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, said the report lacks nuance, such as recognizing the human need to share life’s difficult moments. The company argues that blanket censorship isn’t the answer. “Experts and safety organizations have told us it’s important to strike a balance and allow people to share their personal stories while removing any content that encourages or promotes eating disorders,” Liza Crenshaw, a Meta spokesperson, said in an email.

Jason Nagata, MD, a pediatrician who cares for children and young adults with life-threatening eating disorders, believes that easy access to diet pills contributes to his patients’ conditions at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco. That was the case for one of his patients, an emaciated 11-year-old girl.

“She had basically entered a starvation state because she was not getting enough nutrition,” said Dr. Nagata, who provided supporting testimony for the California bill. “She was taking these pills and using other kinds of extreme behaviors to lose weight.”

Dr. Nagata said the number of patients he sees with eating disorders has tripled since the pandemic began. They are desperate to get diet pills, some with modest results. “We’ve had patients who have been so dependent on these products that they will be hospitalized and they’re still ordering these products on Amazon,” he said.

Public health advocates turned to state legislatures in response to the federal government’s limited authority to regulate diet pills. Under a 1994 federal law known as the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the FDA “cannot step in until after there is a clear issue of harm to consumers,” said Dr. Austin.

No match for the supplement industry’s heavy lobbying on Capitol Hill, public health advocates shifted to a state-by-state approach.

There is, however, a push for the FDA to improve oversight of what goes into diet pills. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in April introduced a bill that would require dietary supplement manufacturers to register their products – along with the ingredients – with the regulator.

Proponents say the change is needed because manufacturers have been known to include dangerous ingredients. C. Michael White, PharmD, of the University of Connecticut, Storrs, found 35% of tainted health products came from weight-loss supplements in a review of a health fraud database.

A few ingredients have been banned, including sibutramine, a stimulant. “It was a very commonly used weight-loss supplement that ended up being removed from the U.S. market because of its elevated risk of causing things like heart attacks, strokes, and arrhythmias,” Dr. White said.

Another ingredient was phenolphthalein, which was used in laxatives until it was identified as a suspected carcinogen and banned in 1999. “To think,” he said, “that that product would still be on the U.S. market is just unconscionable.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

California and New York are on the cusp of going further than the Food and Drug Administration in restricting the sale of nonprescription diet pills to minors as pediatricians and public health advocates try to protect kids from extreme weight-loss gimmicks online.

A bill before Gov. Gavin Newsom would bar anyone under 18 in California from buying over-the-counter weight-loss supplements – whether online or in shops – without a prescription. A similar bill passed by New York lawmakers is on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk. Neither Democrat has indicated how he or she will act.

kaarsten/Thinkstock

If both bills are signed into law, proponents hope the momentum will build to restrict diet pill sales to children in more states. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Missouri have introduced similar bills and backers plan to continue their push next year.

Nearly 30 million people in the United States will have an eating disorder in their lifetime; 95% of them are aged between 12 and 25, according to Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. The hospital added that eating disorders pose the highest risk of mortality of any mental health disorder. And it has become easier than ever for minors to get pills that are sold online or on drugstore shelves. All dietary supplements, which include those for weight loss, accounted for nearly 35% of the $63 billion over-the-counter health products industry in 2021, according to Vision Research Reports, a market research firm.

Dietary supplements, which encompass a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are classified by the FDA as food and don’t undergo scientific and safety testing as prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines do.

Public health advocates want to keep weight-loss products – with ads that may promise to “Drop 5 pounds a week!” and pill names like Slim Sense – away from young people, particularly girls, since some research has linked some products to eating disorders. A study in the American Journal of Public Health, which followed more than 10,000 women aged 14-36 over 15 years, found that “those who used diet pills had more than 5 times higher adjusted odds of receiving an eating disorder diagnosis from a health care provider within 1-3 years than those who did not.”

Many pills have been found tainted with banned and dangerous ingredients that may cause cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and other ailments. For example, the FDA advised the public to avoid Slim Sense by Dr. Reade because it contains lorcaserin, which has been found to cause psychiatric disturbances and impairments in attention or memory. The FDA ordered it discontinued and the company couldn’t be reached for comment.

“Unscrupulous manufacturers are willing to take risks with consumers’ health – and they are lacing their products with illegal pharmaceuticals, banned pharmaceuticals, steroids, excessive stimulants, even experimental stimulants,” said S. Bryn Austin, ScD, founding director of the Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders, or STRIPED, which supports the restrictions. “Consumers have no idea that this is what’s in these types of products.”

STRIPED is a public health initiative based at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Boston Children’s Hospital.

An industry trade group, the Natural Products Association, disputes that diet pills cause eating disorders, citing the lack of consumer complaints to the FDA of adverse events from their members’ products. “According to FDA data, there is no association between the two,” said Kyle Turk, the association’s director of government affairs.

The association contends that its members adhere to safe manufacturing processes, random product testing, and appropriate marketing guidelines. Representatives also worry that if minors can’t buy supplements over the counter, they may buy them from “crooks” on the black market and undermine the integrity of the industry. Under the bills, minors purchasing weight-loss products must show identification along with a prescription.

Not all business groups oppose the ban. The American Herbal Products Association, a trade group representing dietary supplement manufacturers and retailers, dropped its opposition to California’s bill once it was amended to remove ingredient categories that are found in non-diet supplements and vitamins, according to Robert Marriott, director of regulatory affairs.

Children’s advocates have found worrisome trends among young people who envision their ideal body type based on what they see on social media. According to a study commissioned by Fairplay, a nonprofit that seeks to stop harmful marketing practices targeting children, kids as young as 9 were found to be following three or more eating disorder accounts on Instagram, while the median age was 19. The authors called it a “pro–eating disorder bubble.”

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, said the report lacks nuance, such as recognizing the human need to share life’s difficult moments. The company argues that blanket censorship isn’t the answer. “Experts and safety organizations have told us it’s important to strike a balance and allow people to share their personal stories while removing any content that encourages or promotes eating disorders,” Liza Crenshaw, a Meta spokesperson, said in an email.

Jason Nagata, MD, a pediatrician who cares for children and young adults with life-threatening eating disorders, believes that easy access to diet pills contributes to his patients’ conditions at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco. That was the case for one of his patients, an emaciated 11-year-old girl.

“She had basically entered a starvation state because she was not getting enough nutrition,” said Dr. Nagata, who provided supporting testimony for the California bill. “She was taking these pills and using other kinds of extreme behaviors to lose weight.”

Dr. Nagata said the number of patients he sees with eating disorders has tripled since the pandemic began. They are desperate to get diet pills, some with modest results. “We’ve had patients who have been so dependent on these products that they will be hospitalized and they’re still ordering these products on Amazon,” he said.

Public health advocates turned to state legislatures in response to the federal government’s limited authority to regulate diet pills. Under a 1994 federal law known as the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the FDA “cannot step in until after there is a clear issue of harm to consumers,” said Dr. Austin.

No match for the supplement industry’s heavy lobbying on Capitol Hill, public health advocates shifted to a state-by-state approach.

There is, however, a push for the FDA to improve oversight of what goes into diet pills. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in April introduced a bill that would require dietary supplement manufacturers to register their products – along with the ingredients – with the regulator.

Proponents say the change is needed because manufacturers have been known to include dangerous ingredients. C. Michael White, PharmD, of the University of Connecticut, Storrs, found 35% of tainted health products came from weight-loss supplements in a review of a health fraud database.

A few ingredients have been banned, including sibutramine, a stimulant. “It was a very commonly used weight-loss supplement that ended up being removed from the U.S. market because of its elevated risk of causing things like heart attacks, strokes, and arrhythmias,” Dr. White said.

Another ingredient was phenolphthalein, which was used in laxatives until it was identified as a suspected carcinogen and banned in 1999. “To think,” he said, “that that product would still be on the U.S. market is just unconscionable.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

California and New York are on the cusp of going further than the Food and Drug Administration in restricting the sale of nonprescription diet pills to minors as pediatricians and public health advocates try to protect kids from extreme weight-loss gimmicks online.

A bill before Gov. Gavin Newsom would bar anyone under 18 in California from buying over-the-counter weight-loss supplements – whether online or in shops – without a prescription. A similar bill passed by New York lawmakers is on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk. Neither Democrat has indicated how he or she will act.

kaarsten/Thinkstock

If both bills are signed into law, proponents hope the momentum will build to restrict diet pill sales to children in more states. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Missouri have introduced similar bills and backers plan to continue their push next year.

Nearly 30 million people in the United States will have an eating disorder in their lifetime; 95% of them are aged between 12 and 25, according to Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. The hospital added that eating disorders pose the highest risk of mortality of any mental health disorder. And it has become easier than ever for minors to get pills that are sold online or on drugstore shelves. All dietary supplements, which include those for weight loss, accounted for nearly 35% of the $63 billion over-the-counter health products industry in 2021, according to Vision Research Reports, a market research firm.

Dietary supplements, which encompass a broad range of vitamins, herbs, and minerals, are classified by the FDA as food and don’t undergo scientific and safety testing as prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines do.

Public health advocates want to keep weight-loss products – with ads that may promise to “Drop 5 pounds a week!” and pill names like Slim Sense – away from young people, particularly girls, since some research has linked some products to eating disorders. A study in the American Journal of Public Health, which followed more than 10,000 women aged 14-36 over 15 years, found that “those who used diet pills had more than 5 times higher adjusted odds of receiving an eating disorder diagnosis from a health care provider within 1-3 years than those who did not.”

Many pills have been found tainted with banned and dangerous ingredients that may cause cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and other ailments. For example, the FDA advised the public to avoid Slim Sense by Dr. Reade because it contains lorcaserin, which has been found to cause psychiatric disturbances and impairments in attention or memory. The FDA ordered it discontinued and the company couldn’t be reached for comment.

“Unscrupulous manufacturers are willing to take risks with consumers’ health – and they are lacing their products with illegal pharmaceuticals, banned pharmaceuticals, steroids, excessive stimulants, even experimental stimulants,” said S. Bryn Austin, ScD, founding director of the Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders, or STRIPED, which supports the restrictions. “Consumers have no idea that this is what’s in these types of products.”

STRIPED is a public health initiative based at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Boston Children’s Hospital.

An industry trade group, the Natural Products Association, disputes that diet pills cause eating disorders, citing the lack of consumer complaints to the FDA of adverse events from their members’ products. “According to FDA data, there is no association between the two,” said Kyle Turk, the association’s director of government affairs.

The association contends that its members adhere to safe manufacturing processes, random product testing, and appropriate marketing guidelines. Representatives also worry that if minors can’t buy supplements over the counter, they may buy them from “crooks” on the black market and undermine the integrity of the industry. Under the bills, minors purchasing weight-loss products must show identification along with a prescription.

Not all business groups oppose the ban. The American Herbal Products Association, a trade group representing dietary supplement manufacturers and retailers, dropped its opposition to California’s bill once it was amended to remove ingredient categories that are found in non-diet supplements and vitamins, according to Robert Marriott, director of regulatory affairs.

Children’s advocates have found worrisome trends among young people who envision their ideal body type based on what they see on social media. According to a study commissioned by Fairplay, a nonprofit that seeks to stop harmful marketing practices targeting children, kids as young as 9 were found to be following three or more eating disorder accounts on Instagram, while the median age was 19. The authors called it a “pro–eating disorder bubble.”

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, said the report lacks nuance, such as recognizing the human need to share life’s difficult moments. The company argues that blanket censorship isn’t the answer. “Experts and safety organizations have told us it’s important to strike a balance and allow people to share their personal stories while removing any content that encourages or promotes eating disorders,” Liza Crenshaw, a Meta spokesperson, said in an email.

Jason Nagata, MD, a pediatrician who cares for children and young adults with life-threatening eating disorders, believes that easy access to diet pills contributes to his patients’ conditions at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco. That was the case for one of his patients, an emaciated 11-year-old girl.

“She had basically entered a starvation state because she was not getting enough nutrition,” said Dr. Nagata, who provided supporting testimony for the California bill. “She was taking these pills and using other kinds of extreme behaviors to lose weight.”

Dr. Nagata said the number of patients he sees with eating disorders has tripled since the pandemic began. They are desperate to get diet pills, some with modest results. “We’ve had patients who have been so dependent on these products that they will be hospitalized and they’re still ordering these products on Amazon,” he said.

Public health advocates turned to state legislatures in response to the federal government’s limited authority to regulate diet pills. Under a 1994 federal law known as the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the FDA “cannot step in until after there is a clear issue of harm to consumers,” said Dr. Austin.

No match for the supplement industry’s heavy lobbying on Capitol Hill, public health advocates shifted to a state-by-state approach.

There is, however, a push for the FDA to improve oversight of what goes into diet pills. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in April introduced a bill that would require dietary supplement manufacturers to register their products – along with the ingredients – with the regulator.

Proponents say the change is needed because manufacturers have been known to include dangerous ingredients. C. Michael White, PharmD, of the University of Connecticut, Storrs, found 35% of tainted health products came from weight-loss supplements in a review of a health fraud database.

A few ingredients have been banned, including sibutramine, a stimulant. “It was a very commonly used weight-loss supplement that ended up being removed from the U.S. market because of its elevated risk of causing things like heart attacks, strokes, and arrhythmias,” Dr. White said.

Another ingredient was phenolphthalein, which was used in laxatives until it was identified as a suspected carcinogen and banned in 1999. “To think,” he said, “that that product would still be on the U.S. market is just unconscionable.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

Cumulative systolic blood pressure load, which can be calculated from serial blood pressure measurements, may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events, compared with traditional blood pressure measures, a new study suggests.

“Our results suggest that cumulative blood pressure load is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and should be used in future cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms,” the authors, led by Nelson Wang, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, conclude.

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

Cumulative systolic blood pressure load, which can be calculated from serial blood pressure measurements, may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events, compared with traditional blood pressure measures, a new study suggests.

“Our results suggest that cumulative blood pressure load is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and should be used in future cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms,” the authors, led by Nelson Wang, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, conclude.

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

Cumulative systolic blood pressure load, which can be calculated from serial blood pressure measurements, may provide better prediction of major cardiovascular events, compared with traditional blood pressure measures, a new study suggests.

“Our results suggest that cumulative blood pressure load is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and should be used in future cardiovascular risk prediction algorithms,” the authors, led by Nelson Wang, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, conclude.

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

Standing office blood pressure (BP) readings, alone or in combination with seated BP readings, outperform seated BP readings for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, a new study suggests.

Combining three standing and three seated BP measurements in the same visit may lead to a “quicker diagnosis and save people a trip back to the office,” Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Practice changing?

Clinical guidelines recommend office BP be taken in a seated position for most patients.

However, research has suggested that the sensitivity of seated office BP in diagnosing hypertension is about 50%, with high specificity around 90% during a single visit, Dr. Vongpatanasin explained.

At the follow-up visit, however, the second office BP yielded higher sensitivity to 80% but specificity fell to 55%. Nevertheless, the accuracy of standing BP measurements for diagnosing hypertension has not been investigated.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Vongpatanasin and colleagues determined the accuracy of both seated and standing BP for diagnosing hypertension in a single visit in 125 healthy adults who had not had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and were not taking any BP medications. The cohort had a mean age of 49 years, 62% were women, and 24% were Black.

During each office visit, seated BP was measured three times, then standing BP was measured three times using an automated and validated device.

Average seated BP was 123/76 mm Hg and average standing BP was 126/80 mm Hg.

Of the 125 participants, 42 (34%) had hypertension, defined as 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of ≥ 125/75 mm Hg.

The sensitivity and specificity of seated SBP for hypertension was 43% and 92%, respectively.

“Interestingly, with standing SBP, sensitivity was improved to 74% and specificity dropped to 65% – which is okay; you will have to confirm a positive test anyway and when screening for a common disease you’d rather have a high sensitivity rather than low sensitivity to pick it up in this case,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said.

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of standing SBP was significantly higher than seated SBP (Bayes factor [BF] = 11.8) when hypertension was defined as 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg.

Similarly, when hypertension was defined as 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg or daytime DBP ≥ 80 mm Hg, the AUROC of standing DBP was higher than seated DBP (all BF > 3).

The addition of standing to seated BP improved detection of hypertension compared with seated BP alone based on 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg (all BF > 3).

“In our hypertension clinic, we always measure both seated and standing BP in all of our patients,” John Giacona, PA-C, a PhD candidate at UT Southwestern Medical Center and coauthor of the study, told this news organization, 
 

Multiple readings most important

Reached for comment, Johanna Contreras, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, noted that diagnosing hypertension is “difficult” and she agrees that multiple readings are important.

“I usually take at least two readings in two different visits before I tell the patient they have high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

Dr. Contreras said she takes blood pressure both seated and standing.

“I’m not sure standing versus seated makes a big difference. However, when the patient first comes into the office, it is really important to let them rest and calm down before taking the blood pressure,” she said.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Standing office blood pressure (BP) readings, alone or in combination with seated BP readings, outperform seated BP readings for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, a new study suggests.

Combining three standing and three seated BP measurements in the same visit may lead to a “quicker diagnosis and save people a trip back to the office,” Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Practice changing?

Clinical guidelines recommend office BP be taken in a seated position for most patients.

However, research has suggested that the sensitivity of seated office BP in diagnosing hypertension is about 50%, with high specificity around 90% during a single visit, Dr. Vongpatanasin explained.

At the follow-up visit, however, the second office BP yielded higher sensitivity to 80% but specificity fell to 55%. Nevertheless, the accuracy of standing BP measurements for diagnosing hypertension has not been investigated.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Vongpatanasin and colleagues determined the accuracy of both seated and standing BP for diagnosing hypertension in a single visit in 125 healthy adults who had not had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and were not taking any BP medications. The cohort had a mean age of 49 years, 62% were women, and 24% were Black.

During each office visit, seated BP was measured three times, then standing BP was measured three times using an automated and validated device.

Average seated BP was 123/76 mm Hg and average standing BP was 126/80 mm Hg.

Of the 125 participants, 42 (34%) had hypertension, defined as 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of ≥ 125/75 mm Hg.

The sensitivity and specificity of seated SBP for hypertension was 43% and 92%, respectively.

“Interestingly, with standing SBP, sensitivity was improved to 74% and specificity dropped to 65% – which is okay; you will have to confirm a positive test anyway and when screening for a common disease you’d rather have a high sensitivity rather than low sensitivity to pick it up in this case,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said.

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of standing SBP was significantly higher than seated SBP (Bayes factor [BF] = 11.8) when hypertension was defined as 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg.

Similarly, when hypertension was defined as 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg or daytime DBP ≥ 80 mm Hg, the AUROC of standing DBP was higher than seated DBP (all BF > 3).

The addition of standing to seated BP improved detection of hypertension compared with seated BP alone based on 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg (all BF > 3).

“In our hypertension clinic, we always measure both seated and standing BP in all of our patients,” John Giacona, PA-C, a PhD candidate at UT Southwestern Medical Center and coauthor of the study, told this news organization, 
 

Multiple readings most important

Reached for comment, Johanna Contreras, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, noted that diagnosing hypertension is “difficult” and she agrees that multiple readings are important.

“I usually take at least two readings in two different visits before I tell the patient they have high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

Dr. Contreras said she takes blood pressure both seated and standing.

“I’m not sure standing versus seated makes a big difference. However, when the patient first comes into the office, it is really important to let them rest and calm down before taking the blood pressure,” she said.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Standing office blood pressure (BP) readings, alone or in combination with seated BP readings, outperform seated BP readings for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, a new study suggests.

Combining three standing and three seated BP measurements in the same visit may lead to a “quicker diagnosis and save people a trip back to the office,” Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Practice changing?

Clinical guidelines recommend office BP be taken in a seated position for most patients.

However, research has suggested that the sensitivity of seated office BP in diagnosing hypertension is about 50%, with high specificity around 90% during a single visit, Dr. Vongpatanasin explained.

At the follow-up visit, however, the second office BP yielded higher sensitivity to 80% but specificity fell to 55%. Nevertheless, the accuracy of standing BP measurements for diagnosing hypertension has not been investigated.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Vongpatanasin and colleagues determined the accuracy of both seated and standing BP for diagnosing hypertension in a single visit in 125 healthy adults who had not had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and were not taking any BP medications. The cohort had a mean age of 49 years, 62% were women, and 24% were Black.

During each office visit, seated BP was measured three times, then standing BP was measured three times using an automated and validated device.

Average seated BP was 123/76 mm Hg and average standing BP was 126/80 mm Hg.

Of the 125 participants, 42 (34%) had hypertension, defined as 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of ≥ 125/75 mm Hg.

The sensitivity and specificity of seated SBP for hypertension was 43% and 92%, respectively.

“Interestingly, with standing SBP, sensitivity was improved to 74% and specificity dropped to 65% – which is okay; you will have to confirm a positive test anyway and when screening for a common disease you’d rather have a high sensitivity rather than low sensitivity to pick it up in this case,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said.

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of standing SBP was significantly higher than seated SBP (Bayes factor [BF] = 11.8) when hypertension was defined as 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg.

Similarly, when hypertension was defined as 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg or daytime DBP ≥ 80 mm Hg, the AUROC of standing DBP was higher than seated DBP (all BF > 3).

The addition of standing to seated BP improved detection of hypertension compared with seated BP alone based on 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg (all BF > 3).

“In our hypertension clinic, we always measure both seated and standing BP in all of our patients,” John Giacona, PA-C, a PhD candidate at UT Southwestern Medical Center and coauthor of the study, told this news organization, 
 

Multiple readings most important

Reached for comment, Johanna Contreras, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, noted that diagnosing hypertension is “difficult” and she agrees that multiple readings are important.

“I usually take at least two readings in two different visits before I tell the patient they have high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

Dr. Contreras said she takes blood pressure both seated and standing.

“I’m not sure standing versus seated makes a big difference. However, when the patient first comes into the office, it is really important to let them rest and calm down before taking the blood pressure,” she said.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BARCELONA – A novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that uses substernally placed electrodes surpassed its prespecified efficacy and safety targets in the device’s pivotal trial with 299 patients who received an implant.

The results showed that the extravascular ICD “provides antitachycardia pacing and low energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space” for lead placement, Ian Crozier, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results are fantastic; they exceeded our expectations,” said Dr. Crozier in an interview, adding that he expects the new device to receive marketing approval from regulatory agencies based on the findings. “This will be the next generation of ICD going forward,” predicted Dr. Crozier, an electrophysiologist cardiologist at Christchurch (New Zealand) Hospital.
 

Moving beyond transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs

Traditional ICDs use transvenous leads, which can cause vascular injury, are prone to lead fracture over time, and can produce serious infections as well as other potential complications. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved an alternative-design, subcutaneous ICD in 2012 that avoids the need for transvenous leads and the risks they pose. But subcutaneous ICDs have their own limitations: an inability to provide antitachycardia pacing or chronic pacing; a limited ability to provide bradycardia pacing; and an increased device size with shorter battery life, because of the high shock power needed for effective performance. These drawbacks have collectively hindered uptake, Dr. Crozier said.

Medtronic

This led to development of the extravascular ICD – 10 years in the making – which uses substernally placed leads that allow antitachycardia pacing and backup pacing in a device with the size of and the anticipated battery longevity of a transvenous ICD device, noted Dr. Crozier.
 

A 98.7% rate of arrhythmia termination at implant

The pivotal trial’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful defibrillation based on terminating an induced, sustained, shockable ventricular arrhythmia at the time of implantation. The rate was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%. All patients had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD.

The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months, which occurred at a rate of 92.6%, compared with the study’s prespecified target rate of 79%. Both targets were derived from the historical rates of ICDs with transvenous leads.

Simultaneously with Dr. Crozier’s report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the pivotal study met both prespecified endpoints, the evidence has limitations that make it likely that regulatory bodies will seek additional data, commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services for the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
 

Short follow-up; questions remain

“Follow-up was relatively short, less than a year,” and “questions remain” about the extravascular ICD’s performance, Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview. “Inappropriate shocks occurred in nearly 10% of patients after 11 month follow-up,” he noted, and also cited the 29 patients who needed revisions including two cases with lead fractures.

“The extravascular lead strategy has an advantage over transvenous systems because of the lower risk for extraction or explant,” and it also provides the antitachycardia pacing that’s not available with subcutaneous ICDs, he granted. But in the new study, antitachycardia termination was delivered to only 10 patients and had “reasonable” effectiveness by resolving 70% of these episodes. “Wide adoption by clinicians will depend on results from larger studies with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kusumoto maintained. He also wanted to see confirmation of the ease of lead removal after longer periods of implantation.

Implantation ‘is not difficult’

The trial ran at 46 sites in 17 countries during September 2019 to October 2021. It enrolled patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, excluding patients with a prior sternotomy or need for chronic pacing, and those unable to undergo defibrillation testing.

Clinicians attempted an implantation in 316 patients and had successful placement in 299 (314 had successful placement of their substernal leads), with 292 having a functional device after 6 months, and 284 completing their planned 6-month follow-up. The median procedure time was 66 minutes, including the time for defibrillation testing.

All of the cardiologists who did the implants had received a full day of training prior to performing the procedure. “This is not a difficult procedure, but it is not a region [the substernal space] that cardiologists are familiar working in,” noted Dr. Crozier, explaining the rationale behind a policy of required implantation training.

Twenty-five adverse events occurred in 23 patients. Eighteen of these events required a system revision, including nine lead dislodgments and five infections. The seven adverse events that did not require a revision included three wound-related episodes and three hospitalizations for inappropriate shock. No patients died, nor were there any cardiac injuries as result of the implant.

During average follow-up of 10.6 months, the implanted devices delivered antitachycardia pacing to 10 patients, successfully terminating 32 of 46 episodes (70%), a rate that Dr. Crozier called “very good, and very comparable to transvenous devices.” The devices also delivered 18 appropriate shocks that successfully converted all 18 episodes.
 

A 10% rate of inappropriate shocks

However, 29 patients (10% of the study cohort) received inappropriate shocks in 81 episodes, with a total of 118 inappropriate shocks delivered, including 34 episodes (42%) triggered by oversensing of a P wave.

“We fully acknowledge that the inappropriate shock rate is higher than what’s seen with transvenous ICDs, but the rate is comparable to what was seen in the early trials with subcutaneous ICDs,” said Dr. Crozier. “We have a number of strategies to reduce the inappropriate shock rate to what we’d expect with conventional devices,” such as making sure that P waves are not detected by the device at the time of implantation, using new algorithms to mitigate P wave sensing, and other programming changes, he added.

Two patients had lead fractures that Dr. Crozier attributed to atypical lead locations and that are likely avoidable in the future. He expressed optimism that the extravascular ICD will avoid the high lead fracture rate over time that remains a problem for ICDs with transvenous leads.

The study also followed a subgroup of 36 patients who underwent a prespecified protocol of chronic defibrillation testing that was successful in all 36.

Dr. Crozier conceded that the extravascular ICD cannot currently deliver chronic pacing, but he expressed optimism that this capability will be available in the future.

“This innovative [extravascular] ICD system would be particularly beneficial for patients with ventricular arrhythmias that can be reliably pace terminated and avoid a transvenous endocardial lead, but more information is required,” concluded Dr. Kusumoto.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that is developing the extravascular ICD. Dr. Crozier is a consultant to and has received research funding from Medtronic. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – A novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that uses substernally placed electrodes surpassed its prespecified efficacy and safety targets in the device’s pivotal trial with 299 patients who received an implant.

The results showed that the extravascular ICD “provides antitachycardia pacing and low energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space” for lead placement, Ian Crozier, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results are fantastic; they exceeded our expectations,” said Dr. Crozier in an interview, adding that he expects the new device to receive marketing approval from regulatory agencies based on the findings. “This will be the next generation of ICD going forward,” predicted Dr. Crozier, an electrophysiologist cardiologist at Christchurch (New Zealand) Hospital.
 

Moving beyond transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs

Traditional ICDs use transvenous leads, which can cause vascular injury, are prone to lead fracture over time, and can produce serious infections as well as other potential complications. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved an alternative-design, subcutaneous ICD in 2012 that avoids the need for transvenous leads and the risks they pose. But subcutaneous ICDs have their own limitations: an inability to provide antitachycardia pacing or chronic pacing; a limited ability to provide bradycardia pacing; and an increased device size with shorter battery life, because of the high shock power needed for effective performance. These drawbacks have collectively hindered uptake, Dr. Crozier said.

Medtronic

This led to development of the extravascular ICD – 10 years in the making – which uses substernally placed leads that allow antitachycardia pacing and backup pacing in a device with the size of and the anticipated battery longevity of a transvenous ICD device, noted Dr. Crozier.
 

A 98.7% rate of arrhythmia termination at implant

The pivotal trial’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful defibrillation based on terminating an induced, sustained, shockable ventricular arrhythmia at the time of implantation. The rate was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%. All patients had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD.

The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months, which occurred at a rate of 92.6%, compared with the study’s prespecified target rate of 79%. Both targets were derived from the historical rates of ICDs with transvenous leads.

Simultaneously with Dr. Crozier’s report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the pivotal study met both prespecified endpoints, the evidence has limitations that make it likely that regulatory bodies will seek additional data, commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services for the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
 

Short follow-up; questions remain

“Follow-up was relatively short, less than a year,” and “questions remain” about the extravascular ICD’s performance, Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview. “Inappropriate shocks occurred in nearly 10% of patients after 11 month follow-up,” he noted, and also cited the 29 patients who needed revisions including two cases with lead fractures.

“The extravascular lead strategy has an advantage over transvenous systems because of the lower risk for extraction or explant,” and it also provides the antitachycardia pacing that’s not available with subcutaneous ICDs, he granted. But in the new study, antitachycardia termination was delivered to only 10 patients and had “reasonable” effectiveness by resolving 70% of these episodes. “Wide adoption by clinicians will depend on results from larger studies with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kusumoto maintained. He also wanted to see confirmation of the ease of lead removal after longer periods of implantation.

Implantation ‘is not difficult’

The trial ran at 46 sites in 17 countries during September 2019 to October 2021. It enrolled patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, excluding patients with a prior sternotomy or need for chronic pacing, and those unable to undergo defibrillation testing.

Clinicians attempted an implantation in 316 patients and had successful placement in 299 (314 had successful placement of their substernal leads), with 292 having a functional device after 6 months, and 284 completing their planned 6-month follow-up. The median procedure time was 66 minutes, including the time for defibrillation testing.

All of the cardiologists who did the implants had received a full day of training prior to performing the procedure. “This is not a difficult procedure, but it is not a region [the substernal space] that cardiologists are familiar working in,” noted Dr. Crozier, explaining the rationale behind a policy of required implantation training.

Twenty-five adverse events occurred in 23 patients. Eighteen of these events required a system revision, including nine lead dislodgments and five infections. The seven adverse events that did not require a revision included three wound-related episodes and three hospitalizations for inappropriate shock. No patients died, nor were there any cardiac injuries as result of the implant.

During average follow-up of 10.6 months, the implanted devices delivered antitachycardia pacing to 10 patients, successfully terminating 32 of 46 episodes (70%), a rate that Dr. Crozier called “very good, and very comparable to transvenous devices.” The devices also delivered 18 appropriate shocks that successfully converted all 18 episodes.
 

A 10% rate of inappropriate shocks

However, 29 patients (10% of the study cohort) received inappropriate shocks in 81 episodes, with a total of 118 inappropriate shocks delivered, including 34 episodes (42%) triggered by oversensing of a P wave.

“We fully acknowledge that the inappropriate shock rate is higher than what’s seen with transvenous ICDs, but the rate is comparable to what was seen in the early trials with subcutaneous ICDs,” said Dr. Crozier. “We have a number of strategies to reduce the inappropriate shock rate to what we’d expect with conventional devices,” such as making sure that P waves are not detected by the device at the time of implantation, using new algorithms to mitigate P wave sensing, and other programming changes, he added.

Two patients had lead fractures that Dr. Crozier attributed to atypical lead locations and that are likely avoidable in the future. He expressed optimism that the extravascular ICD will avoid the high lead fracture rate over time that remains a problem for ICDs with transvenous leads.

The study also followed a subgroup of 36 patients who underwent a prespecified protocol of chronic defibrillation testing that was successful in all 36.

Dr. Crozier conceded that the extravascular ICD cannot currently deliver chronic pacing, but he expressed optimism that this capability will be available in the future.

“This innovative [extravascular] ICD system would be particularly beneficial for patients with ventricular arrhythmias that can be reliably pace terminated and avoid a transvenous endocardial lead, but more information is required,” concluded Dr. Kusumoto.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that is developing the extravascular ICD. Dr. Crozier is a consultant to and has received research funding from Medtronic. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – A novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that uses substernally placed electrodes surpassed its prespecified efficacy and safety targets in the device’s pivotal trial with 299 patients who received an implant.

The results showed that the extravascular ICD “provides antitachycardia pacing and low energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space” for lead placement, Ian Crozier, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results are fantastic; they exceeded our expectations,” said Dr. Crozier in an interview, adding that he expects the new device to receive marketing approval from regulatory agencies based on the findings. “This will be the next generation of ICD going forward,” predicted Dr. Crozier, an electrophysiologist cardiologist at Christchurch (New Zealand) Hospital.
 

Moving beyond transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs

Traditional ICDs use transvenous leads, which can cause vascular injury, are prone to lead fracture over time, and can produce serious infections as well as other potential complications. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved an alternative-design, subcutaneous ICD in 2012 that avoids the need for transvenous leads and the risks they pose. But subcutaneous ICDs have their own limitations: an inability to provide antitachycardia pacing or chronic pacing; a limited ability to provide bradycardia pacing; and an increased device size with shorter battery life, because of the high shock power needed for effective performance. These drawbacks have collectively hindered uptake, Dr. Crozier said.

Medtronic

This led to development of the extravascular ICD – 10 years in the making – which uses substernally placed leads that allow antitachycardia pacing and backup pacing in a device with the size of and the anticipated battery longevity of a transvenous ICD device, noted Dr. Crozier.
 

A 98.7% rate of arrhythmia termination at implant

The pivotal trial’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful defibrillation based on terminating an induced, sustained, shockable ventricular arrhythmia at the time of implantation. The rate was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%. All patients had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD.

The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months, which occurred at a rate of 92.6%, compared with the study’s prespecified target rate of 79%. Both targets were derived from the historical rates of ICDs with transvenous leads.

Simultaneously with Dr. Crozier’s report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the pivotal study met both prespecified endpoints, the evidence has limitations that make it likely that regulatory bodies will seek additional data, commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services for the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
 

Short follow-up; questions remain

“Follow-up was relatively short, less than a year,” and “questions remain” about the extravascular ICD’s performance, Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview. “Inappropriate shocks occurred in nearly 10% of patients after 11 month follow-up,” he noted, and also cited the 29 patients who needed revisions including two cases with lead fractures.

“The extravascular lead strategy has an advantage over transvenous systems because of the lower risk for extraction or explant,” and it also provides the antitachycardia pacing that’s not available with subcutaneous ICDs, he granted. But in the new study, antitachycardia termination was delivered to only 10 patients and had “reasonable” effectiveness by resolving 70% of these episodes. “Wide adoption by clinicians will depend on results from larger studies with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kusumoto maintained. He also wanted to see confirmation of the ease of lead removal after longer periods of implantation.

Implantation ‘is not difficult’

The trial ran at 46 sites in 17 countries during September 2019 to October 2021. It enrolled patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, excluding patients with a prior sternotomy or need for chronic pacing, and those unable to undergo defibrillation testing.

Clinicians attempted an implantation in 316 patients and had successful placement in 299 (314 had successful placement of their substernal leads), with 292 having a functional device after 6 months, and 284 completing their planned 6-month follow-up. The median procedure time was 66 minutes, including the time for defibrillation testing.

All of the cardiologists who did the implants had received a full day of training prior to performing the procedure. “This is not a difficult procedure, but it is not a region [the substernal space] that cardiologists are familiar working in,” noted Dr. Crozier, explaining the rationale behind a policy of required implantation training.

Twenty-five adverse events occurred in 23 patients. Eighteen of these events required a system revision, including nine lead dislodgments and five infections. The seven adverse events that did not require a revision included three wound-related episodes and three hospitalizations for inappropriate shock. No patients died, nor were there any cardiac injuries as result of the implant.

During average follow-up of 10.6 months, the implanted devices delivered antitachycardia pacing to 10 patients, successfully terminating 32 of 46 episodes (70%), a rate that Dr. Crozier called “very good, and very comparable to transvenous devices.” The devices also delivered 18 appropriate shocks that successfully converted all 18 episodes.
 

A 10% rate of inappropriate shocks

However, 29 patients (10% of the study cohort) received inappropriate shocks in 81 episodes, with a total of 118 inappropriate shocks delivered, including 34 episodes (42%) triggered by oversensing of a P wave.

“We fully acknowledge that the inappropriate shock rate is higher than what’s seen with transvenous ICDs, but the rate is comparable to what was seen in the early trials with subcutaneous ICDs,” said Dr. Crozier. “We have a number of strategies to reduce the inappropriate shock rate to what we’d expect with conventional devices,” such as making sure that P waves are not detected by the device at the time of implantation, using new algorithms to mitigate P wave sensing, and other programming changes, he added.

Two patients had lead fractures that Dr. Crozier attributed to atypical lead locations and that are likely avoidable in the future. He expressed optimism that the extravascular ICD will avoid the high lead fracture rate over time that remains a problem for ICDs with transvenous leads.

The study also followed a subgroup of 36 patients who underwent a prespecified protocol of chronic defibrillation testing that was successful in all 36.

Dr. Crozier conceded that the extravascular ICD cannot currently deliver chronic pacing, but he expressed optimism that this capability will be available in the future.

“This innovative [extravascular] ICD system would be particularly beneficial for patients with ventricular arrhythmias that can be reliably pace terminated and avoid a transvenous endocardial lead, but more information is required,” concluded Dr. Kusumoto.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that is developing the extravascular ICD. Dr. Crozier is a consultant to and has received research funding from Medtronic. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures.

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.