MDedge Cardiology

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Statins have, overall, been a remarkably beneficial class of drugs. Yes, you occasionally get patients who see them as part of some huge pharma-government conspiracy (along with vaccines and 5G, presumably) but the data are there to support them.

One of the issues with them is myalgias. We all see this to varying degrees. We all warn patients about it, as do their pharmacists, the information sheets from the pharmacy, some TV show, a Facebook friend, that guy in their Tuesday bowling league ... etc.

It is a legitimate concern. Some people definitely do get muscle cramps from them and need to come off. Scanning the medication list of someone who comes in with muscle cramps is a key part of the case.

Recently, the Lancet published a meta-analysis on the subject and found that, in 9 out of 10 patients who complained of muscle cramps on statins, the symptoms were unrelated to the drug. While previous data suggested rates of myalgias as high as 29%, this paper found it was closer to 7% compared with placebo. Only one in 15 of the muscle-related reports by patients while taking statins were clearly caused by the drug.

The power of suggestion is remarkable indeed.

The study is interesting. It might be correct.

But try telling that to the patients.

We all have patients who will get pretty much any side effect we mention, or that they read about online. That’s just human nature for some. But even reasonable adults can confuse things. The guy who starts Lipitor one week then helps his daughter move into her apartment the next. The lady who starts Crestor while training for a half-marathon. And so on.

The fact is that a lot of people take statins. And a lot of people (like, pretty much all of us) do things that can cause muscle injuries. Sooner or later these lines are going to intersect, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.

It’s a lot harder to explain that, and have people believe it, once they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. Pravachol definitely did this, Dr. Google said so. It doesn’t help that trust in doctors, and health care science in general, has been eroded by political pundits and nonmedical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. To some people our years of experience and training are nothing compared to what an anonymous guy on Parler told them.

Certainly this paper will help. A lot of people can benefit from statins. With this data maybe we can convince some to give them a fair shot.

But, as we’ve all experienced in practice, sometimes no amount of solid data will change the mind of someone who’s already made theirs up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Black Americans who go to church and pray regularly have better cardiovascular health than Black Americans who are not as religious or have no religious beliefs, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used survey responses and health screenings for 2,967 African Americans in and around Jackson, Mich.

Those who attended religious services frequently were 15% more likely to achieve an intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health score, based on criteria from the AHA.

Those who prayed privately regularly had a 12% increase in the chances of achieving an intermediate or ideal AHA metric for diet. Those who said they used “religious coping” were 14% more likely to have good cardiovascular health.

The study’s lead author, cardiologist LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the results were somewhat surprising because diet, physical activity, and smoking are extremely difficult to change.

People in the study were grouped by their self-reported levels of spirituality, meaning belief in the existence of a supreme being, and how often they went to church services, prayed in private, and used religion to cope with stressful events and the challenges of life.

They were then grouped according to the health factors in the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels). The association changed the Simple 7 to the Essential 8 last June, adding sleep.

Dr. Brewer said the study may help doctors better treat Black Americans, who, statistics show, tend to have poorer overall cardiovascular health than non-Hispanic White people. Death rates from heart disease are higher for Black Americans than white adults.

“Our findings highlight the substantial role that culturally tailored health promotion initiatives and recommendations for lifestyle change may play in advancing health equity,” Dr. Brewer said in a news release. “The cultural relevance of interventions may increase their likelihood of influencing cardiovascular health and also the sustainability and maintenance of healthy lifestyle changes.”

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

Black Americans who go to church and pray regularly have better cardiovascular health than Black Americans who are not as religious or have no religious beliefs, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used survey responses and health screenings for 2,967 African Americans in and around Jackson, Mich.

Those who attended religious services frequently were 15% more likely to achieve an intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health score, based on criteria from the AHA.

Those who prayed privately regularly had a 12% increase in the chances of achieving an intermediate or ideal AHA metric for diet. Those who said they used “religious coping” were 14% more likely to have good cardiovascular health.

The study’s lead author, cardiologist LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the results were somewhat surprising because diet, physical activity, and smoking are extremely difficult to change.

People in the study were grouped by their self-reported levels of spirituality, meaning belief in the existence of a supreme being, and how often they went to church services, prayed in private, and used religion to cope with stressful events and the challenges of life.

They were then grouped according to the health factors in the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels). The association changed the Simple 7 to the Essential 8 last June, adding sleep.

Dr. Brewer said the study may help doctors better treat Black Americans, who, statistics show, tend to have poorer overall cardiovascular health than non-Hispanic White people. Death rates from heart disease are higher for Black Americans than white adults.

“Our findings highlight the substantial role that culturally tailored health promotion initiatives and recommendations for lifestyle change may play in advancing health equity,” Dr. Brewer said in a news release. “The cultural relevance of interventions may increase their likelihood of influencing cardiovascular health and also the sustainability and maintenance of healthy lifestyle changes.”

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

Black Americans who go to church and pray regularly have better cardiovascular health than Black Americans who are not as religious or have no religious beliefs, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used survey responses and health screenings for 2,967 African Americans in and around Jackson, Mich.

Those who attended religious services frequently were 15% more likely to achieve an intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health score, based on criteria from the AHA.

Those who prayed privately regularly had a 12% increase in the chances of achieving an intermediate or ideal AHA metric for diet. Those who said they used “religious coping” were 14% more likely to have good cardiovascular health.

The study’s lead author, cardiologist LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the results were somewhat surprising because diet, physical activity, and smoking are extremely difficult to change.

People in the study were grouped by their self-reported levels of spirituality, meaning belief in the existence of a supreme being, and how often they went to church services, prayed in private, and used religion to cope with stressful events and the challenges of life.

They were then grouped according to the health factors in the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels). The association changed the Simple 7 to the Essential 8 last June, adding sleep.

Dr. Brewer said the study may help doctors better treat Black Americans, who, statistics show, tend to have poorer overall cardiovascular health than non-Hispanic White people. Death rates from heart disease are higher for Black Americans than white adults.

“Our findings highlight the substantial role that culturally tailored health promotion initiatives and recommendations for lifestyle change may play in advancing health equity,” Dr. Brewer said in a news release. “The cultural relevance of interventions may increase their likelihood of influencing cardiovascular health and also the sustainability and maintenance of healthy lifestyle changes.”

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

Early rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) improves cardiovascular outcomes regardless of an individual’s stroke risk, a large retrospective study finds.

These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.

“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
 

Methods and results

The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.

Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.

Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
 

Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective

“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”

Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.

“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”

Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.

Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.

“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.

For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.

“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”

Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.

Early rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) improves cardiovascular outcomes regardless of an individual’s stroke risk, a large retrospective study finds.

These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.

“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
 

Methods and results

The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.

Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.

Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
 

Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective

“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”

Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.

“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”

Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.

Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.

“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.

For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.

“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”

Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.

Early rhythm control for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) improves cardiovascular outcomes regardless of an individual’s stroke risk, a large retrospective study finds.

These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.

“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
 

Methods and results

The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.

Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.

Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
 

Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective

“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”

Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.

“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”

Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.

Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.

“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.

For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.

“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”

Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.

The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.

Clinicians in Portugal say a 31-year-old man with confirmed monkeypox developed acute myocarditis roughly 1 week after the eruption of the characteristic skin lesions of the disease.

“This case highlights cardiac involvement as a potential complication associated with monkeypox infection,” Ana Isabel Pinho, MD, department of cardiology, São João University Hospital Centre, Porto, Portugal, said in a news release.

“We believe that reporting this potential causal relationship can raise more awareness of the scientific community and health professionals for acute myocarditis as a possible complication associated with monkeypox and might be helpful for close monitoring of affected patients for further recognition of other complications in the future,” Dr. Pinho adds.

Dr. Pinho and colleagues describe the case in a report published in JACC: Case Reports.
 

Case details

The patient presented with a 5-day history of malaise, myalgias, and fever followed by the eruption of multiple swollen skin lesions on his face, hands, and genitalia.

Monkeypox was confirmed by positive polymerase chain reaction assay of a swab sample from a skin lesion.

Three days later, the patient developed chest tightness that radiated through the left arm and which awoke him during the night. He was admitted to an intensive care unit with clinical suspicion of acute myocarditis.

The patient’s initial electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm with nonspecific ventricular repolarization abnormalities.

On chest x-ray, the cardiothoracic index was normal, with no interstitial infiltrates, pleural effusion, or masses. On transthoracic echocardigraphy, biventricular systolic function was preserved, and there was no pericardial effusion.

Routine laboratory tests revealed elevated levels of C-reactive protein, creatine phosphokinase, high-sensitivity troponin I, and brain natriuretic peptide, suggesting stress injury to the heart.

Findings on cardiac magnetic resonance were consistent with myocardial inflammation and acute myocarditis.

The patient was treated with supportive care, and he made a full clinical recovery. He was discharged after 1 week. On discharge, cardiac enzymes were within the normal range. The patient showed sustained electric and hemodynamic stability, and the skin lesions had healed.

“Through this important case study, we are developing a deeper understanding of monkeypox, viral myocarditis, and how to accurately diagnose and manage this disease,” Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports, commented in the news release.

“I commend the authors on this valuable clinical case during a critical time as monkeypox continues to spread globally,” Dr. Grapsa added.

The researchers say further research is needed to identify the pathologic mechanism underlying monkeypox-associated cardiac injury.
 

By the numbers

According to the latest data, California has reported 3,629 cases, followed closely by New York with 3,367 cases, Florida with 1,957 cases, Texas with 1,698, Georgia with 1,418, and Illinois with 1,081. The other states have reported fewer than 600 cases.

The CDC says that globally, more than 52,000 monkeypox cases have been reported.

Monkeypox case counts appear to be slowing in the United States and globally.

Last week, the World Health Organization said the number of new cases worldwide declined by 21% between Aug. 15 and 21 after increasing for 4 straight weeks.

The research had no funding. Dr. Pinho and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians in Portugal say a 31-year-old man with confirmed monkeypox developed acute myocarditis roughly 1 week after the eruption of the characteristic skin lesions of the disease.

“This case highlights cardiac involvement as a potential complication associated with monkeypox infection,” Ana Isabel Pinho, MD, department of cardiology, São João University Hospital Centre, Porto, Portugal, said in a news release.

“We believe that reporting this potential causal relationship can raise more awareness of the scientific community and health professionals for acute myocarditis as a possible complication associated with monkeypox and might be helpful for close monitoring of affected patients for further recognition of other complications in the future,” Dr. Pinho adds.

Dr. Pinho and colleagues describe the case in a report published in JACC: Case Reports.
 

Case details

The patient presented with a 5-day history of malaise, myalgias, and fever followed by the eruption of multiple swollen skin lesions on his face, hands, and genitalia.

Monkeypox was confirmed by positive polymerase chain reaction assay of a swab sample from a skin lesion.

Three days later, the patient developed chest tightness that radiated through the left arm and which awoke him during the night. He was admitted to an intensive care unit with clinical suspicion of acute myocarditis.

The patient’s initial electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm with nonspecific ventricular repolarization abnormalities.

On chest x-ray, the cardiothoracic index was normal, with no interstitial infiltrates, pleural effusion, or masses. On transthoracic echocardigraphy, biventricular systolic function was preserved, and there was no pericardial effusion.

Routine laboratory tests revealed elevated levels of C-reactive protein, creatine phosphokinase, high-sensitivity troponin I, and brain natriuretic peptide, suggesting stress injury to the heart.

Findings on cardiac magnetic resonance were consistent with myocardial inflammation and acute myocarditis.

The patient was treated with supportive care, and he made a full clinical recovery. He was discharged after 1 week. On discharge, cardiac enzymes were within the normal range. The patient showed sustained electric and hemodynamic stability, and the skin lesions had healed.

“Through this important case study, we are developing a deeper understanding of monkeypox, viral myocarditis, and how to accurately diagnose and manage this disease,” Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports, commented in the news release.

“I commend the authors on this valuable clinical case during a critical time as monkeypox continues to spread globally,” Dr. Grapsa added.

The researchers say further research is needed to identify the pathologic mechanism underlying monkeypox-associated cardiac injury.
 

By the numbers

According to the latest data, California has reported 3,629 cases, followed closely by New York with 3,367 cases, Florida with 1,957 cases, Texas with 1,698, Georgia with 1,418, and Illinois with 1,081. The other states have reported fewer than 600 cases.

The CDC says that globally, more than 52,000 monkeypox cases have been reported.

Monkeypox case counts appear to be slowing in the United States and globally.

Last week, the World Health Organization said the number of new cases worldwide declined by 21% between Aug. 15 and 21 after increasing for 4 straight weeks.

The research had no funding. Dr. Pinho and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians in Portugal say a 31-year-old man with confirmed monkeypox developed acute myocarditis roughly 1 week after the eruption of the characteristic skin lesions of the disease.

“This case highlights cardiac involvement as a potential complication associated with monkeypox infection,” Ana Isabel Pinho, MD, department of cardiology, São João University Hospital Centre, Porto, Portugal, said in a news release.

“We believe that reporting this potential causal relationship can raise more awareness of the scientific community and health professionals for acute myocarditis as a possible complication associated with monkeypox and might be helpful for close monitoring of affected patients for further recognition of other complications in the future,” Dr. Pinho adds.

Dr. Pinho and colleagues describe the case in a report published in JACC: Case Reports.
 

Case details

The patient presented with a 5-day history of malaise, myalgias, and fever followed by the eruption of multiple swollen skin lesions on his face, hands, and genitalia.

Monkeypox was confirmed by positive polymerase chain reaction assay of a swab sample from a skin lesion.

Three days later, the patient developed chest tightness that radiated through the left arm and which awoke him during the night. He was admitted to an intensive care unit with clinical suspicion of acute myocarditis.

The patient’s initial electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm with nonspecific ventricular repolarization abnormalities.

On chest x-ray, the cardiothoracic index was normal, with no interstitial infiltrates, pleural effusion, or masses. On transthoracic echocardigraphy, biventricular systolic function was preserved, and there was no pericardial effusion.

Routine laboratory tests revealed elevated levels of C-reactive protein, creatine phosphokinase, high-sensitivity troponin I, and brain natriuretic peptide, suggesting stress injury to the heart.

Findings on cardiac magnetic resonance were consistent with myocardial inflammation and acute myocarditis.

The patient was treated with supportive care, and he made a full clinical recovery. He was discharged after 1 week. On discharge, cardiac enzymes were within the normal range. The patient showed sustained electric and hemodynamic stability, and the skin lesions had healed.

“Through this important case study, we are developing a deeper understanding of monkeypox, viral myocarditis, and how to accurately diagnose and manage this disease,” Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports, commented in the news release.

“I commend the authors on this valuable clinical case during a critical time as monkeypox continues to spread globally,” Dr. Grapsa added.

The researchers say further research is needed to identify the pathologic mechanism underlying monkeypox-associated cardiac injury.
 

By the numbers

According to the latest data, California has reported 3,629 cases, followed closely by New York with 3,367 cases, Florida with 1,957 cases, Texas with 1,698, Georgia with 1,418, and Illinois with 1,081. The other states have reported fewer than 600 cases.

The CDC says that globally, more than 52,000 monkeypox cases have been reported.

Monkeypox case counts appear to be slowing in the United States and globally.

Last week, the World Health Organization said the number of new cases worldwide declined by 21% between Aug. 15 and 21 after increasing for 4 straight weeks.

The research had no funding. Dr. Pinho and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Prompted by the “unprecedented” increase in the occurrence of infective endocarditis (IE) cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association has issued a scientific statement devoted solely to this challenging patient population.

The statement provides a more in-depth focus on the management of IE among this unique population than what has been provided in prior AHA IE-related documents.

The statement stresses that managing IE in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique multidisciplinary approach that includes consultation with an addiction specialist.

The statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Poor long-term prognosis

In the United States from 2002 to 2016, the proportion of patients hospitalized with IE related to injection drug use doubled from 8% to about 16%.

The long-term prognosis for this population is “currently dismal for this relatively young group of individuals,” writing group Chair Daniel C. DeSimone, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., notes in a news release.

To improve prognosis, the writing group advises a multidisciplinary team care approach that includes cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and infectious diseases specialists as well as addiction medicine or addiction psychiatry specialists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurse specialists.

Nurse specialists can coordinate care from the initial IE hospitalization to outpatient and community care to support substance use disorder.

“Clinical teams must recognize that substance use disorder is a treatable chronic, relapsing medical illness and many people are able to enter sustained remission, particularly when they receive effective treatments,” the writing group emphasizes.

Although not all patients with injection drug–related IE have opioid addiction, for those who do, the “best practice” is to offer buprenorphine or methadone “as soon as possible” after the patient presents to the hospital, they advise.
 

Antimicrobial therapy

The writing group says it’s “reasonable” to offer people with injection drug–related IE standard treatment for IE, which is 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. They recognize, however, that this regimen is often not feasible in this patient population and say there is growing evidence that partial intravenous therapy followed by oral antibiotic treatment to complete a total of 6 weeks is a possible option.

They also highlight the “critical” importance of preventive measures in people who inject drugs who are successfully treated for an initial bout of IE because they remain at “extremely” high risk for subsequent bouts of IE, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

The writing group also stresses that people with IE who inject drugs should be considered for heart valve repair or replacement surgery regardless of current drug use if they have indications for valve surgery.

“There’s no evidence that indications for valve surgery are different for people who inject drugs compared to those who don’t, however, some treatment centers don’t offer surgery, especially if the patient currently injects drugs or has had a previous valve surgery,” Dr. DeSimone says in the release.

“Those who develop infective endocarditis require complex care delivered by professionals who look beyond stigma and bias to provide optimal and equitable care,” Dr. DeSimone adds.

The writing group acknowledges that while addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry expertise are critical to managing IE in injection drug users, these specific resources are currently not widely available.

They call on health care systems to attract individuals with addiction training and support addiction medicine consultative services, particularly in centers where drug use–related IE is common and expected to continue to increase.

This AHA scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease Committee of the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; the Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. DeSimone has no relevant disclosures.

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

Prompted by the “unprecedented” increase in the occurrence of infective endocarditis (IE) cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association has issued a scientific statement devoted solely to this challenging patient population.

The statement provides a more in-depth focus on the management of IE among this unique population than what has been provided in prior AHA IE-related documents.

The statement stresses that managing IE in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique multidisciplinary approach that includes consultation with an addiction specialist.

The statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Poor long-term prognosis

In the United States from 2002 to 2016, the proportion of patients hospitalized with IE related to injection drug use doubled from 8% to about 16%.

The long-term prognosis for this population is “currently dismal for this relatively young group of individuals,” writing group Chair Daniel C. DeSimone, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., notes in a news release.

To improve prognosis, the writing group advises a multidisciplinary team care approach that includes cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and infectious diseases specialists as well as addiction medicine or addiction psychiatry specialists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurse specialists.

Nurse specialists can coordinate care from the initial IE hospitalization to outpatient and community care to support substance use disorder.

“Clinical teams must recognize that substance use disorder is a treatable chronic, relapsing medical illness and many people are able to enter sustained remission, particularly when they receive effective treatments,” the writing group emphasizes.

Although not all patients with injection drug–related IE have opioid addiction, for those who do, the “best practice” is to offer buprenorphine or methadone “as soon as possible” after the patient presents to the hospital, they advise.
 

Antimicrobial therapy

The writing group says it’s “reasonable” to offer people with injection drug–related IE standard treatment for IE, which is 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. They recognize, however, that this regimen is often not feasible in this patient population and say there is growing evidence that partial intravenous therapy followed by oral antibiotic treatment to complete a total of 6 weeks is a possible option.

They also highlight the “critical” importance of preventive measures in people who inject drugs who are successfully treated for an initial bout of IE because they remain at “extremely” high risk for subsequent bouts of IE, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

The writing group also stresses that people with IE who inject drugs should be considered for heart valve repair or replacement surgery regardless of current drug use if they have indications for valve surgery.

“There’s no evidence that indications for valve surgery are different for people who inject drugs compared to those who don’t, however, some treatment centers don’t offer surgery, especially if the patient currently injects drugs or has had a previous valve surgery,” Dr. DeSimone says in the release.

“Those who develop infective endocarditis require complex care delivered by professionals who look beyond stigma and bias to provide optimal and equitable care,” Dr. DeSimone adds.

The writing group acknowledges that while addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry expertise are critical to managing IE in injection drug users, these specific resources are currently not widely available.

They call on health care systems to attract individuals with addiction training and support addiction medicine consultative services, particularly in centers where drug use–related IE is common and expected to continue to increase.

This AHA scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease Committee of the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; the Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. DeSimone has no relevant disclosures.

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

Prompted by the “unprecedented” increase in the occurrence of infective endocarditis (IE) cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association has issued a scientific statement devoted solely to this challenging patient population.

The statement provides a more in-depth focus on the management of IE among this unique population than what has been provided in prior AHA IE-related documents.

The statement stresses that managing IE in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique multidisciplinary approach that includes consultation with an addiction specialist.

The statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Poor long-term prognosis

In the United States from 2002 to 2016, the proportion of patients hospitalized with IE related to injection drug use doubled from 8% to about 16%.

The long-term prognosis for this population is “currently dismal for this relatively young group of individuals,” writing group Chair Daniel C. DeSimone, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., notes in a news release.

To improve prognosis, the writing group advises a multidisciplinary team care approach that includes cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and infectious diseases specialists as well as addiction medicine or addiction psychiatry specialists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurse specialists.

Nurse specialists can coordinate care from the initial IE hospitalization to outpatient and community care to support substance use disorder.

“Clinical teams must recognize that substance use disorder is a treatable chronic, relapsing medical illness and many people are able to enter sustained remission, particularly when they receive effective treatments,” the writing group emphasizes.

Although not all patients with injection drug–related IE have opioid addiction, for those who do, the “best practice” is to offer buprenorphine or methadone “as soon as possible” after the patient presents to the hospital, they advise.
 

Antimicrobial therapy

The writing group says it’s “reasonable” to offer people with injection drug–related IE standard treatment for IE, which is 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. They recognize, however, that this regimen is often not feasible in this patient population and say there is growing evidence that partial intravenous therapy followed by oral antibiotic treatment to complete a total of 6 weeks is a possible option.

They also highlight the “critical” importance of preventive measures in people who inject drugs who are successfully treated for an initial bout of IE because they remain at “extremely” high risk for subsequent bouts of IE, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

The writing group also stresses that people with IE who inject drugs should be considered for heart valve repair or replacement surgery regardless of current drug use if they have indications for valve surgery.

“There’s no evidence that indications for valve surgery are different for people who inject drugs compared to those who don’t, however, some treatment centers don’t offer surgery, especially if the patient currently injects drugs or has had a previous valve surgery,” Dr. DeSimone says in the release.

“Those who develop infective endocarditis require complex care delivered by professionals who look beyond stigma and bias to provide optimal and equitable care,” Dr. DeSimone adds.

The writing group acknowledges that while addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry expertise are critical to managing IE in injection drug users, these specific resources are currently not widely available.

They call on health care systems to attract individuals with addiction training and support addiction medicine consultative services, particularly in centers where drug use–related IE is common and expected to continue to increase.

This AHA scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease Committee of the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; the Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. DeSimone has no relevant disclosures.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

Two large observational studies published in The BMJ this week highlight the dangers of a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).

The first links the diet to an increased risk for colorectal cancer; the second shows a heightened risk of death from heart disease or any cause over a 14-year period.

UPFs are highly manipulated and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. They include soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, french fries, and many more.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Few studies, however, have focused specifically on the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).  
 

Novel data

To investigate, researchers analyzed data on 206,248 American adults (46,341 men, 159,907 women) from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Dietary intake was assessed every 4 years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

During up to 28 years of follow-up, 1,294 men and 1,922 women developed CRC.

In Cox proportional models adjusted for confounding factors, men with the highest UPF intake had a 29% higher risk for CRC than men with the lowest UPF consumption. This association was limited to distal colon cancer, with a 72% increased risk.

Among subgroups of UPFs, a higher intake of meat/poultry/seafood-based, ready-to-eat products, and sugary drinks were associated with increased risk for CRC among men.

“These products include some processed meats like sausages, bacon, ham, and fish cakes. This is consistent with our hypothesis,” lead author Lu Wang, PhD, with Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

There was no association between overall UPF intake and risk for CRC in women, and the reasons for this are unclear, the researchers say.

However, among the subgroups of UPFs, there was a positive association between ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes and CRC risk and an inverse association between yogurt and dairy desserts and CRC risk among women.

It’s possible that foods like yogurt help counteract the harmful impacts of other types of UPFs in women, the researchers say.  

“Further research will be needed to determine whether there is a true sex difference in the associations or if null findings in women in this study were merely due to chance or some uncontrolled confounding factors in women that mitigated the association,” co-senior author Mingyang Song, MD, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, says in the news release.
 

Hard on the heart too

The related study in The BMJ shows a joint association between a low-quality diet and high intake of UPFs and increased risk for death from heart disease or any cause.

In this study of 22,895 Italian adults (mean age, 55 years; 48% men), those with the least healthy diets had a 19% higher risk of dying from any cause and a 32% higher risk for death from cardiovascular disease, over 14 years, compared with peers with the healthiest diets.

Adults with the highest share of UPFs had similarly elevated risks for all-cause and heart disease mortality (19% and 27% higher risk, respectively).

When the two food dimensions (nutrients and food processing) were analyzed jointly, the association of poor diet quality with mortality was significantly attenuated, but UPF intake remained highly associated with mortality, even after accounting for poor nutritional diet quality.

“These findings suggest that highly processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes independently of their low nutritional composition,” Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, with IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues note in their paper.

The new studies linking UPFs to CRC and heart disease join a recent study that found high UPF intake is harmful for the aging brain, as reported by this news organization.
 

A call to action

Putting it bluntly, “everybody needs food, but nobody needs ultra-processed foods,” Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, and Geoffrey Cannon, with University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, write in an editorial in The BMJ.

They point out that most UPFs are made, sold, and promoted by corporations that make them to be convenient, affordable, and hyper-palatable, thus liable to displace other foods and also to be overconsumed.

“The rational solution is official public policies, including guidelines and publicity advising avoidance, and actions, including statutes, designed to reduce production and consumption of ultraprocessed foods and to restrict or preferably prohibit their promotion,” Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Cannon suggest.

What’s also needed, they say, are “available, attractive, and affordable” supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, as well as national initiatives to promote and support freshly prepared meals made with fresh and minimally processed foods, using small amounts of processed culinary ingredients and processed foods.

“Enacted, this will promote public health. It will also nourish families, society, economies, and the environment,” the editorialists conclude.

The U.S. study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The Italian study was supported by the Pfizer Foundation, Italian Ministry of University and Research, Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Wang, Dr. Song, Dr. Bonaccio, Dr. Monteiro, and Mr. Cannon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 9/1/22.

Two large observational studies published in The BMJ this week highlight the dangers of a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).

The first links the diet to an increased risk for colorectal cancer; the second shows a heightened risk of death from heart disease or any cause over a 14-year period.

UPFs are highly manipulated and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. They include soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, french fries, and many more.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Few studies, however, have focused specifically on the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).  
 

Novel data

To investigate, researchers analyzed data on 206,248 American adults (46,341 men, 159,907 women) from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Dietary intake was assessed every 4 years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

During up to 28 years of follow-up, 1,294 men and 1,922 women developed CRC.

In Cox proportional models adjusted for confounding factors, men with the highest UPF intake had a 29% higher risk for CRC than men with the lowest UPF consumption. This association was limited to distal colon cancer, with a 72% increased risk.

Among subgroups of UPFs, a higher intake of meat/poultry/seafood-based, ready-to-eat products, and sugary drinks were associated with increased risk for CRC among men.

“These products include some processed meats like sausages, bacon, ham, and fish cakes. This is consistent with our hypothesis,” lead author Lu Wang, PhD, with Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

There was no association between overall UPF intake and risk for CRC in women, and the reasons for this are unclear, the researchers say.

However, among the subgroups of UPFs, there was a positive association between ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes and CRC risk and an inverse association between yogurt and dairy desserts and CRC risk among women.

It’s possible that foods like yogurt help counteract the harmful impacts of other types of UPFs in women, the researchers say.  

“Further research will be needed to determine whether there is a true sex difference in the associations or if null findings in women in this study were merely due to chance or some uncontrolled confounding factors in women that mitigated the association,” co-senior author Mingyang Song, MD, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, says in the news release.
 

Hard on the heart too

The related study in The BMJ shows a joint association between a low-quality diet and high intake of UPFs and increased risk for death from heart disease or any cause.

In this study of 22,895 Italian adults (mean age, 55 years; 48% men), those with the least healthy diets had a 19% higher risk of dying from any cause and a 32% higher risk for death from cardiovascular disease, over 14 years, compared with peers with the healthiest diets.

Adults with the highest share of UPFs had similarly elevated risks for all-cause and heart disease mortality (19% and 27% higher risk, respectively).

When the two food dimensions (nutrients and food processing) were analyzed jointly, the association of poor diet quality with mortality was significantly attenuated, but UPF intake remained highly associated with mortality, even after accounting for poor nutritional diet quality.

“These findings suggest that highly processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes independently of their low nutritional composition,” Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, with IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues note in their paper.

The new studies linking UPFs to CRC and heart disease join a recent study that found high UPF intake is harmful for the aging brain, as reported by this news organization.
 

A call to action

Putting it bluntly, “everybody needs food, but nobody needs ultra-processed foods,” Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, and Geoffrey Cannon, with University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, write in an editorial in The BMJ.

They point out that most UPFs are made, sold, and promoted by corporations that make them to be convenient, affordable, and hyper-palatable, thus liable to displace other foods and also to be overconsumed.

“The rational solution is official public policies, including guidelines and publicity advising avoidance, and actions, including statutes, designed to reduce production and consumption of ultraprocessed foods and to restrict or preferably prohibit their promotion,” Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Cannon suggest.

What’s also needed, they say, are “available, attractive, and affordable” supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, as well as national initiatives to promote and support freshly prepared meals made with fresh and minimally processed foods, using small amounts of processed culinary ingredients and processed foods.

“Enacted, this will promote public health. It will also nourish families, society, economies, and the environment,” the editorialists conclude.

The U.S. study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The Italian study was supported by the Pfizer Foundation, Italian Ministry of University and Research, Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Wang, Dr. Song, Dr. Bonaccio, Dr. Monteiro, and Mr. Cannon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 9/1/22.

Two large observational studies published in The BMJ this week highlight the dangers of a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).

The first links the diet to an increased risk for colorectal cancer; the second shows a heightened risk of death from heart disease or any cause over a 14-year period.

UPFs are highly manipulated and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt, and are low in protein and fiber. They include soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, french fries, and many more.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a steady increase in consumption of UPFs worldwide, coupled with mounting evidence that diets rich in UPFs raise the risk for several chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Few studies, however, have focused specifically on the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).  
 

Novel data

To investigate, researchers analyzed data on 206,248 American adults (46,341 men, 159,907 women) from the Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Dietary intake was assessed every 4 years using detailed food frequency questionnaires.

During up to 28 years of follow-up, 1,294 men and 1,922 women developed CRC.

In Cox proportional models adjusted for confounding factors, men with the highest UPF intake had a 29% higher risk for CRC than men with the lowest UPF consumption. This association was limited to distal colon cancer, with a 72% increased risk.

Among subgroups of UPFs, a higher intake of meat/poultry/seafood-based, ready-to-eat products, and sugary drinks were associated with increased risk for CRC among men.

“These products include some processed meats like sausages, bacon, ham, and fish cakes. This is consistent with our hypothesis,” lead author Lu Wang, PhD, with Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

There was no association between overall UPF intake and risk for CRC in women, and the reasons for this are unclear, the researchers say.

However, among the subgroups of UPFs, there was a positive association between ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes and CRC risk and an inverse association between yogurt and dairy desserts and CRC risk among women.

It’s possible that foods like yogurt help counteract the harmful impacts of other types of UPFs in women, the researchers say.  

“Further research will be needed to determine whether there is a true sex difference in the associations or if null findings in women in this study were merely due to chance or some uncontrolled confounding factors in women that mitigated the association,” co-senior author Mingyang Song, MD, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, says in the news release.
 

Hard on the heart too

The related study in The BMJ shows a joint association between a low-quality diet and high intake of UPFs and increased risk for death from heart disease or any cause.

In this study of 22,895 Italian adults (mean age, 55 years; 48% men), those with the least healthy diets had a 19% higher risk of dying from any cause and a 32% higher risk for death from cardiovascular disease, over 14 years, compared with peers with the healthiest diets.

Adults with the highest share of UPFs had similarly elevated risks for all-cause and heart disease mortality (19% and 27% higher risk, respectively).

When the two food dimensions (nutrients and food processing) were analyzed jointly, the association of poor diet quality with mortality was significantly attenuated, but UPF intake remained highly associated with mortality, even after accounting for poor nutritional diet quality.

“These findings suggest that highly processed foods are associated with poor health outcomes independently of their low nutritional composition,” Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, with IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues note in their paper.

The new studies linking UPFs to CRC and heart disease join a recent study that found high UPF intake is harmful for the aging brain, as reported by this news organization.
 

A call to action

Putting it bluntly, “everybody needs food, but nobody needs ultra-processed foods,” Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, and Geoffrey Cannon, with University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, write in an editorial in The BMJ.

They point out that most UPFs are made, sold, and promoted by corporations that make them to be convenient, affordable, and hyper-palatable, thus liable to displace other foods and also to be overconsumed.

“The rational solution is official public policies, including guidelines and publicity advising avoidance, and actions, including statutes, designed to reduce production and consumption of ultraprocessed foods and to restrict or preferably prohibit their promotion,” Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Cannon suggest.

What’s also needed, they say, are “available, attractive, and affordable” supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, as well as national initiatives to promote and support freshly prepared meals made with fresh and minimally processed foods, using small amounts of processed culinary ingredients and processed foods.

“Enacted, this will promote public health. It will also nourish families, society, economies, and the environment,” the editorialists conclude.

The U.S. study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The Italian study was supported by the Pfizer Foundation, Italian Ministry of University and Research, Instrumentation Laboratory, Milan, and the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Wang, Dr. Song, Dr. Bonaccio, Dr. Monteiro, and Mr. Cannon report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 9/1/22.

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

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

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

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

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

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