MDedge Cardiology

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.

Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.

“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.

Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.

“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.

Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.

“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A new analysis of the REDUCE-IT study has reignited concerns that the benefit shown by the high-dose fish oil product in the study, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), may have been related to harms caused by the placebo mineral oil.

Results show that allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels of these biomarkers increased among those allocated to mineral oil.

At 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline in the mineral oil group were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin (IL)-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and 28.9% for IL-1β. The changes were similar at 24 months. However, in the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months.

The study was published online in Circulation.

The authors, led by Paul Ridker, MD, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, do not voice much opinion on what the results mean, concluding that “the effect of these findings on the interpretation of the REDUCE-IT trial results remains unclear and will require further investigation.”

They also say that a second icosapent ethyl trial using a nonmineral oil comparator “would help resolve ongoing controversy.”

However, the authors are a mixed group; Dr. Ridker and some of his coauthors were not part of the original REDUCE-IT trial, whereas other coauthors were members of the REDUCE-IT steering committee, and one was an employee of Amarin.

Lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, also from Brigham & Women’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the current study, played down the new findings, saying they did not offer much new incremental information on mechanistic insight.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Smoking gun’

One of the loudest critics of the study, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, described the new findings as “the closest thing I’ve seen to a smoking gun in medicine for a long, long time.”

“The result of this new analysis shows that mineral oil increases virtually every inflammatory and lipid marker that they measured,” he commented.

“There are a lot of theories, but the bottom line is that something really bad happened in the mineral-oil group, which makes icosapent ethyl look efficacious. In my view, this needs to be reviewed by the FDA for consideration of removing the label claim for cardiovascular benefit.”

Other experts in the field not directly involved in the study voiced concern about these new findings, adding to calls for another trial.

In a Twitter thread on the issue, Harlan Krumholz, MD, describes the Circulation publication as “an exceptionally important article,” adding that it is “time to rethink this drug.”

“My point is ... once you know you have non-neutral comparator and the effect on risk biomarkers is far from trivial ... then you have introduced substantial uncertainty about the trial result, as conveyed by the authors ... and no one can say what would happen with a neutral comparator,” Dr. Krumholz writes.

In an accompanying editorial in Circulation, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, concludes that “the hard reality is that we are left with uncertainties and the questions raised by use of the mineral oil as placebo can only be answered by another randomized controlled trial.”

New data do not change the debate

“We did a large, well-powered randomized trial, and this paper shouldn’t change anything in how that trial should be interpreted,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

He claims the new biomarkers evaluated in the study are correlated with LDL and CRP, data which have already been reported and analyzed so have limited relevance.

“It’s not really independent biomarker information; this is what we would expect to see when we see small increases in LDL and CRP. So, I don’t think this new information fundamentally changes the debate,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that the study highlights relative increases rather than absolute increases in the biomarkers, making it seem more alarming than is actually the case.

“The paper makes it seem like that there are large increases in these other biomarkers, but the values reported are relative increases and the absolute increases were actually rather small. In many cases, the changes reported are less than the lower limit of quantification of the assay used,” he noted.

He added: “Even if one is unable to get around the placebo issue in the REDUCE-IT trial, there will always be the JELIS trial – a randomized trial with no placebo showing a 19% relative risk reduction. While the biomarker data may be interesting, what really matters in the end is clinical events. And significant reductions in two independent trials should be enough.”

Dr. Bhatt says the REDUCE-IT steering committee does not believe another trial is needed. “Maybe a different population would be good – such as primary prevention, patients without elevated triglycerides – but just repeating REDUCE- IT with a different placebo would be a waste of resources,” he commented.

But Dr. Nissen refuted Dr. Bhatt’s claims.

“These biomarkers are not in the same pathways as LDL and CRP, and these are not small increases. In the CANTOS trial, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-1β beta showed a significant benefit. The increase in interleukin-1β now reported in REDUCE-IT is exactly the opposite of CANTOS,” he pointed out.

“The FDA did not know about these additional biomarkers when it reviewed the data on LDL and CRP. Now we have new information. It needs to be looked at again,” Dr. Nissen added.

Funding for the study was provided by Amarin Pharma. Dr. Bhatt was the lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial. Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator the STRENGTH trial. Further disclosures of the authors can be found in Circulation.

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

A new analysis of the REDUCE-IT study has reignited concerns that the benefit shown by the high-dose fish oil product in the study, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), may have been related to harms caused by the placebo mineral oil.

Results show that allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels of these biomarkers increased among those allocated to mineral oil.

At 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline in the mineral oil group were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin (IL)-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and 28.9% for IL-1β. The changes were similar at 24 months. However, in the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months.

The study was published online in Circulation.

The authors, led by Paul Ridker, MD, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, do not voice much opinion on what the results mean, concluding that “the effect of these findings on the interpretation of the REDUCE-IT trial results remains unclear and will require further investigation.”

They also say that a second icosapent ethyl trial using a nonmineral oil comparator “would help resolve ongoing controversy.”

However, the authors are a mixed group; Dr. Ridker and some of his coauthors were not part of the original REDUCE-IT trial, whereas other coauthors were members of the REDUCE-IT steering committee, and one was an employee of Amarin.

Lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, also from Brigham & Women’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the current study, played down the new findings, saying they did not offer much new incremental information on mechanistic insight.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Smoking gun’

One of the loudest critics of the study, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, described the new findings as “the closest thing I’ve seen to a smoking gun in medicine for a long, long time.”

“The result of this new analysis shows that mineral oil increases virtually every inflammatory and lipid marker that they measured,” he commented.

“There are a lot of theories, but the bottom line is that something really bad happened in the mineral-oil group, which makes icosapent ethyl look efficacious. In my view, this needs to be reviewed by the FDA for consideration of removing the label claim for cardiovascular benefit.”

Other experts in the field not directly involved in the study voiced concern about these new findings, adding to calls for another trial.

In a Twitter thread on the issue, Harlan Krumholz, MD, describes the Circulation publication as “an exceptionally important article,” adding that it is “time to rethink this drug.”

“My point is ... once you know you have non-neutral comparator and the effect on risk biomarkers is far from trivial ... then you have introduced substantial uncertainty about the trial result, as conveyed by the authors ... and no one can say what would happen with a neutral comparator,” Dr. Krumholz writes.

In an accompanying editorial in Circulation, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, concludes that “the hard reality is that we are left with uncertainties and the questions raised by use of the mineral oil as placebo can only be answered by another randomized controlled trial.”

New data do not change the debate

“We did a large, well-powered randomized trial, and this paper shouldn’t change anything in how that trial should be interpreted,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

He claims the new biomarkers evaluated in the study are correlated with LDL and CRP, data which have already been reported and analyzed so have limited relevance.

“It’s not really independent biomarker information; this is what we would expect to see when we see small increases in LDL and CRP. So, I don’t think this new information fundamentally changes the debate,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that the study highlights relative increases rather than absolute increases in the biomarkers, making it seem more alarming than is actually the case.

“The paper makes it seem like that there are large increases in these other biomarkers, but the values reported are relative increases and the absolute increases were actually rather small. In many cases, the changes reported are less than the lower limit of quantification of the assay used,” he noted.

He added: “Even if one is unable to get around the placebo issue in the REDUCE-IT trial, there will always be the JELIS trial – a randomized trial with no placebo showing a 19% relative risk reduction. While the biomarker data may be interesting, what really matters in the end is clinical events. And significant reductions in two independent trials should be enough.”

Dr. Bhatt says the REDUCE-IT steering committee does not believe another trial is needed. “Maybe a different population would be good – such as primary prevention, patients without elevated triglycerides – but just repeating REDUCE- IT with a different placebo would be a waste of resources,” he commented.

But Dr. Nissen refuted Dr. Bhatt’s claims.

“These biomarkers are not in the same pathways as LDL and CRP, and these are not small increases. In the CANTOS trial, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-1β beta showed a significant benefit. The increase in interleukin-1β now reported in REDUCE-IT is exactly the opposite of CANTOS,” he pointed out.

“The FDA did not know about these additional biomarkers when it reviewed the data on LDL and CRP. Now we have new information. It needs to be looked at again,” Dr. Nissen added.

Funding for the study was provided by Amarin Pharma. Dr. Bhatt was the lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial. Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator the STRENGTH trial. Further disclosures of the authors can be found in Circulation.

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

A new analysis of the REDUCE-IT study has reignited concerns that the benefit shown by the high-dose fish oil product in the study, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), may have been related to harms caused by the placebo mineral oil.

Results show that allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels of these biomarkers increased among those allocated to mineral oil.

At 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline in the mineral oil group were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin (IL)-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and 28.9% for IL-1β. The changes were similar at 24 months. However, in the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months.

The study was published online in Circulation.

The authors, led by Paul Ridker, MD, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, do not voice much opinion on what the results mean, concluding that “the effect of these findings on the interpretation of the REDUCE-IT trial results remains unclear and will require further investigation.”

They also say that a second icosapent ethyl trial using a nonmineral oil comparator “would help resolve ongoing controversy.”

However, the authors are a mixed group; Dr. Ridker and some of his coauthors were not part of the original REDUCE-IT trial, whereas other coauthors were members of the REDUCE-IT steering committee, and one was an employee of Amarin.

Lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, also from Brigham & Women’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the current study, played down the new findings, saying they did not offer much new incremental information on mechanistic insight.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Smoking gun’

One of the loudest critics of the study, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, described the new findings as “the closest thing I’ve seen to a smoking gun in medicine for a long, long time.”

“The result of this new analysis shows that mineral oil increases virtually every inflammatory and lipid marker that they measured,” he commented.

“There are a lot of theories, but the bottom line is that something really bad happened in the mineral-oil group, which makes icosapent ethyl look efficacious. In my view, this needs to be reviewed by the FDA for consideration of removing the label claim for cardiovascular benefit.”

Other experts in the field not directly involved in the study voiced concern about these new findings, adding to calls for another trial.

In a Twitter thread on the issue, Harlan Krumholz, MD, describes the Circulation publication as “an exceptionally important article,” adding that it is “time to rethink this drug.”

“My point is ... once you know you have non-neutral comparator and the effect on risk biomarkers is far from trivial ... then you have introduced substantial uncertainty about the trial result, as conveyed by the authors ... and no one can say what would happen with a neutral comparator,” Dr. Krumholz writes.

In an accompanying editorial in Circulation, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, concludes that “the hard reality is that we are left with uncertainties and the questions raised by use of the mineral oil as placebo can only be answered by another randomized controlled trial.”

New data do not change the debate

“We did a large, well-powered randomized trial, and this paper shouldn’t change anything in how that trial should be interpreted,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

He claims the new biomarkers evaluated in the study are correlated with LDL and CRP, data which have already been reported and analyzed so have limited relevance.

“It’s not really independent biomarker information; this is what we would expect to see when we see small increases in LDL and CRP. So, I don’t think this new information fundamentally changes the debate,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that the study highlights relative increases rather than absolute increases in the biomarkers, making it seem more alarming than is actually the case.

“The paper makes it seem like that there are large increases in these other biomarkers, but the values reported are relative increases and the absolute increases were actually rather small. In many cases, the changes reported are less than the lower limit of quantification of the assay used,” he noted.

He added: “Even if one is unable to get around the placebo issue in the REDUCE-IT trial, there will always be the JELIS trial – a randomized trial with no placebo showing a 19% relative risk reduction. While the biomarker data may be interesting, what really matters in the end is clinical events. And significant reductions in two independent trials should be enough.”

Dr. Bhatt says the REDUCE-IT steering committee does not believe another trial is needed. “Maybe a different population would be good – such as primary prevention, patients without elevated triglycerides – but just repeating REDUCE- IT with a different placebo would be a waste of resources,” he commented.

But Dr. Nissen refuted Dr. Bhatt’s claims.

“These biomarkers are not in the same pathways as LDL and CRP, and these are not small increases. In the CANTOS trial, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-1β beta showed a significant benefit. The increase in interleukin-1β now reported in REDUCE-IT is exactly the opposite of CANTOS,” he pointed out.

“The FDA did not know about these additional biomarkers when it reviewed the data on LDL and CRP. Now we have new information. It needs to be looked at again,” Dr. Nissen added.

Funding for the study was provided by Amarin Pharma. Dr. Bhatt was the lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial. Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator the STRENGTH trial. Further disclosures of the authors can be found in Circulation.

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

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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