CHEST Physician

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

The American Heart Association (AHA) draws attention to the important bidirectional link between cardiovascular health and brain health in its annual statistical update on heart disease and stroke.

“For several years now, the AHA and the scientific community have increasingly recognized the connections between cardiovascular health and brain health, so it was time for us to cement this into its own chapter, which we highlight as the brain health chapter,” Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, chair of the statistical update writing group, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an AHA podcast.

“The global rate of brain disease is quickly outpacing heart disease,” Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the AHA, added in a news release.

“The rate of deaths from Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias rose more than twice as much in the past decade compared to the rate of deaths from heart disease, and that is something we must address,” said Dr. Elkind, with Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

“It’s becoming more evident that reducing vascular disease risk factors can make a real difference in helping people live longer, healthier lives, free of heart disease and brain disease,” Dr. Elkind added.

The AHA’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2022 Update was published online January 26 in Circulation).

The report highlights some of the research connecting heart and brain health, including the following:

• A meta-analysis of 139 studies showed that people with midlife hypertension were five times more likely to experience impairment on global cognition and about twice as likely to experience reduced executive function, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• A meta-analysis of four longitudinal studies found that the risk for dementia associated with heart failure was increased nearly twofold.
• In the large prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Neurocognitive Study, atrial fibrillation was associated with greater cognitive decline and dementia over 20 years.
• A meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies (including 24,801 participants) showed that coronary heart disease (CHD) was associated with a 40% increased risk of poor cognitive outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, or cognitive decline.

“This new chapter on brain health was a critical one to add,” Dr. Tsao said in the news release.

“The data we’ve collected brings to light the strong correlations between heart health and brain health and makes it an easy story to tell -- what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Tsao added.

Along with the new chapter on brain health, the 2022 statistical update provides the latest statistics and heart disease and stroke. Among the highlights:

• Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In the United States in 2019, CVD, listed as the underlying cause of death, accounted for 874,613 deaths, about 2,396 deaths each day. On average, someone dies of CVD every 36 seconds.
• CVD claims more lives each year in the United States than all forms of cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease combined.
• In 2019, CHD was the leading cause (41.3%) of deaths attributable to CVD, followed by other CVD (17.3%), stroke (17.2%), hypertension (11.7%), heart failure (9.9%), and diseases of the arteries (2.8%).
• In 2019, stroke accounted for roughly 1 in every 19 deaths in the United States. On average, someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds and someone dies of stroke every 3 minutes 30 seconds. When considered separately from other CVD, stroke ranks number five among all causes of death in the United States.

While the annual statistics update aims to be a contemporary update of annual heart disease and stroke statistics over the past year, it also examines trends over time, Dr. Tsao explains in the podcast.

“One noteworthy point is that we saw a decline in the rate of cardiovascular mortality over the past three decades or so until about 2010. But over the past decade now, we’re also seeing a rise in these numbers,” she said.

This could be due to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor hypertension control, as well as other lifestyle behaviors, Tsao said.
 

Key risk factor data

Each year, the statistical update gauges the cardiovascular health of Americans by tracking seven key health factors and behaviors that increase risk for heart disease and stroke. Below is a snapshot of the latest risk factor data.

Smoking

In 2019, smoking was the leading risk factor for years of life lost to premature death and the third leading risk factor for years of life lived with disability or injury.

According to the 2020 surgeon general’s report on smoking cessation, more than 480,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and more than 41,000 die of secondhand smoke exposure each year (roughly 1 in 5 deaths annually).

One in 7 adults are current smokers, 1 in 6 female adults are current smokers, and 1 in 5 high school students use e-cigarettes.
 

Physical inactivity

In 2018, 25.4% of U.S. adults did not engage in leisure-time physical activity, and only 24.0% met the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for both aerobic and muscle strengthening.

Among U.S. high school students in 2019, only 44.1% were physically active for 60 minutes or more on at least 5 days of the week.
 

Nutrition

While there is some evidence that Americans are improving their diet, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults met guidelines for whole grain, whole fruit, and nonstarchy vegetable consumption each day in 2017–2018.

Overweight/obesity

The prevalence of obesity among adults increased from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018 from 30.5% to 42.4%. Overall prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in U.S. youth 2 to 19 years of age increased from 13.9% to 19.3% and 2.6% to 6.1% between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018.

Cholesterol

Close to 94 million (38.1%) U.S. adults have total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher, according to 2015–2018 data; about 28.0 million (11.5%) have total cholesterol of 240 mg/dL or higher; and 27.8% have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (130 mg/dL or higher).

Diabetes

In 2019, 87,647 U.S. deaths were attributed to diabetes; data show that 9.8 million U.S. adults have undiagnosed diabetes, 28.2 million have diagnosed diabetes, and 113.6 million have prediabetes.

Hypertension

A total of 121.5 million (47.3%) U.S. adults have hypertension, based on 2015–2018 data. In 2019, 102,072 U.S. deaths were primarily attributable to hypertension.

This statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Disclosures for the writing committee are listed with the original article.



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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Hospitalized intensive care patients with respiratory syncytial virus were significantly more likely to be immunocompromised and to have chronic respiratory conditions than those with influenza infections, but in-hospital mortality rates were similar, based on data from 618 adults.

Respiratory syncytial virus is common in adults, but characteristics of RSV patients requiring ICU care have not been explored, despite routine testing for RSV in critically ill patients in many institutions, Julien Coussement, PhD, of Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, and colleagues wrote.

“Influenza is another respiratory virus routinely tested for in ICU patients with respiratory symptoms because of its well-known morbidity and mortality, but there are no data specifically comparing RSV and influenza infections in adult ICU patients,” they noted.

In a retrospective, multicenter study published in the journal CHEST, the researchers analyzed data from 309 adult ICU patients with RSV infection and 309 with influenza infection between November 2011 and April 2018 from 17 sites in France and Belgium. Each RSV patient was matched to a flu patient according to institution and date of diagnosis.

The primary objective was a comparison of in-hospital mortality between the groups, defined as death from any cause during an index hospital stay in acute care. Secondary objectives were comparisons of the clinical and biological characteristics of patients with RSV versus flu.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the RSV and influenza groups (23.9% vs. 25.6%, P = .63).

However, patients with RSV infection were significantly more likely than those with flu to have an underlying chronic respiratory condition (60.2% vs. 40.1%, P < .001) and to be immunocompromised (35% vs. 26.2%, P = .02). Very few of the patients overall (39 patients, 6.3%) were considered young and healthy prior to hospitalization; and significantly fewer of these were in the RSV group than in the influenza group (9 patients and 30 patients, respectively).

Airway obstruction at the time of diagnosis was significantly more common in the RSV patients than in influenza patients (49.5% vs. 39.5%, P = .01), but influenza patients were significantly more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of diagnosis (21.7% vs. 14.6%, P = .02). Rates of coinfections were similar between the groups, and approximately 60% of coinfected patients received at least 72 hours of therapeutic antibiotics. Overall length of hospital stay, ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar between the groups.

The results show that severe RSV occurs mainly in older patients with comorbidities, and these results reflect data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. In addition, “patients with influenza infection were significantly more likely to have fever, myalgia, increased CPK level, thrombocytopenia and transaminitis at diagnosis than were those with RSV infection. Whether these differences may be used to guide patient management remains to be determined.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, and testing for respiratory viruses on symptomatic patients only, rather than all ICU patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to show a causal link between viral infections and patient outcomes and the heterogenous management of patients among different centers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and multivariate analysis, and support the need for interventions to prevent and treat severe RSV, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Coussement disclosed serving on advisory board for Sanofi.

Hospitalized intensive care patients with respiratory syncytial virus were significantly more likely to be immunocompromised and to have chronic respiratory conditions than those with influenza infections, but in-hospital mortality rates were similar, based on data from 618 adults.

Respiratory syncytial virus is common in adults, but characteristics of RSV patients requiring ICU care have not been explored, despite routine testing for RSV in critically ill patients in many institutions, Julien Coussement, PhD, of Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, and colleagues wrote.

“Influenza is another respiratory virus routinely tested for in ICU patients with respiratory symptoms because of its well-known morbidity and mortality, but there are no data specifically comparing RSV and influenza infections in adult ICU patients,” they noted.

In a retrospective, multicenter study published in the journal CHEST, the researchers analyzed data from 309 adult ICU patients with RSV infection and 309 with influenza infection between November 2011 and April 2018 from 17 sites in France and Belgium. Each RSV patient was matched to a flu patient according to institution and date of diagnosis.

The primary objective was a comparison of in-hospital mortality between the groups, defined as death from any cause during an index hospital stay in acute care. Secondary objectives were comparisons of the clinical and biological characteristics of patients with RSV versus flu.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the RSV and influenza groups (23.9% vs. 25.6%, P = .63).

However, patients with RSV infection were significantly more likely than those with flu to have an underlying chronic respiratory condition (60.2% vs. 40.1%, P < .001) and to be immunocompromised (35% vs. 26.2%, P = .02). Very few of the patients overall (39 patients, 6.3%) were considered young and healthy prior to hospitalization; and significantly fewer of these were in the RSV group than in the influenza group (9 patients and 30 patients, respectively).

Airway obstruction at the time of diagnosis was significantly more common in the RSV patients than in influenza patients (49.5% vs. 39.5%, P = .01), but influenza patients were significantly more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of diagnosis (21.7% vs. 14.6%, P = .02). Rates of coinfections were similar between the groups, and approximately 60% of coinfected patients received at least 72 hours of therapeutic antibiotics. Overall length of hospital stay, ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar between the groups.

The results show that severe RSV occurs mainly in older patients with comorbidities, and these results reflect data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. In addition, “patients with influenza infection were significantly more likely to have fever, myalgia, increased CPK level, thrombocytopenia and transaminitis at diagnosis than were those with RSV infection. Whether these differences may be used to guide patient management remains to be determined.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, and testing for respiratory viruses on symptomatic patients only, rather than all ICU patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to show a causal link between viral infections and patient outcomes and the heterogenous management of patients among different centers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and multivariate analysis, and support the need for interventions to prevent and treat severe RSV, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Coussement disclosed serving on advisory board for Sanofi.

Hospitalized intensive care patients with respiratory syncytial virus were significantly more likely to be immunocompromised and to have chronic respiratory conditions than those with influenza infections, but in-hospital mortality rates were similar, based on data from 618 adults.

Respiratory syncytial virus is common in adults, but characteristics of RSV patients requiring ICU care have not been explored, despite routine testing for RSV in critically ill patients in many institutions, Julien Coussement, PhD, of Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, and colleagues wrote.

“Influenza is another respiratory virus routinely tested for in ICU patients with respiratory symptoms because of its well-known morbidity and mortality, but there are no data specifically comparing RSV and influenza infections in adult ICU patients,” they noted.

In a retrospective, multicenter study published in the journal CHEST, the researchers analyzed data from 309 adult ICU patients with RSV infection and 309 with influenza infection between November 2011 and April 2018 from 17 sites in France and Belgium. Each RSV patient was matched to a flu patient according to institution and date of diagnosis.

The primary objective was a comparison of in-hospital mortality between the groups, defined as death from any cause during an index hospital stay in acute care. Secondary objectives were comparisons of the clinical and biological characteristics of patients with RSV versus flu.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the RSV and influenza groups (23.9% vs. 25.6%, P = .63).

However, patients with RSV infection were significantly more likely than those with flu to have an underlying chronic respiratory condition (60.2% vs. 40.1%, P < .001) and to be immunocompromised (35% vs. 26.2%, P = .02). Very few of the patients overall (39 patients, 6.3%) were considered young and healthy prior to hospitalization; and significantly fewer of these were in the RSV group than in the influenza group (9 patients and 30 patients, respectively).

Airway obstruction at the time of diagnosis was significantly more common in the RSV patients than in influenza patients (49.5% vs. 39.5%, P = .01), but influenza patients were significantly more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of diagnosis (21.7% vs. 14.6%, P = .02). Rates of coinfections were similar between the groups, and approximately 60% of coinfected patients received at least 72 hours of therapeutic antibiotics. Overall length of hospital stay, ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar between the groups.

The results show that severe RSV occurs mainly in older patients with comorbidities, and these results reflect data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. In addition, “patients with influenza infection were significantly more likely to have fever, myalgia, increased CPK level, thrombocytopenia and transaminitis at diagnosis than were those with RSV infection. Whether these differences may be used to guide patient management remains to be determined.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, and testing for respiratory viruses on symptomatic patients only, rather than all ICU patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to show a causal link between viral infections and patient outcomes and the heterogenous management of patients among different centers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and multivariate analysis, and support the need for interventions to prevent and treat severe RSV, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Coussement disclosed serving on advisory board for Sanofi.

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

Patients with severe asthma who were new to omalizumab showed significant clinical improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, according to data from a pilot study of 26 adults.

Although omalizumab is approved for severe allergic asthma, not all patients respond well, and are considered nonresponders in the absence of clinical benefits within 16 weeks of starting treatment, wrote Todor A. Popov, MD, of the University Hospital St. Ivan Rilski, Sofia, Bulgaria, and colleagues.

“Since airway inflammation is a cardinal feature of asthma, we reasoned that early changes in its level may determine the subsequent course of the disease,” they said.

In a study published in Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers recruited 26 adults with severe asthma who were new to biologic therapy and eligible for omalizumab. The patients ranged in age from 22 to 70 years, and 13 were men. Patients received omalizumab doses between 150 mg and 375 mg every 2-4 weeks based on body weight and pretreatment serum IgE levels, and they were assessed at baseline and followed for a total of 18 weeks (2-week run-in and 16 weeks of treatment).

Patients rated their overall discomfort from asthma on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Asthma control was assessed via the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and disease-related quality of life was assessed via the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaires (AQLQ). All patients reported significant improvement across all three measures after 2 weeks and through the study period after the first administration of omalizumab at week 0 (P < .001).

Clinical response was based on quantitative indicators of airway and systemic eosinophilic inflammation: fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), eosinophil cationic peptide (ECP), and the temperature of the exhaled air (EBT, exhaled breath temperature). The researchers also measured fractional EBT (FrEBT) by measuring the EBT of central and peripheral airways at the beginning and end of the expiration.

Overall, EBT decreased significantly after 2 weeks, and the decrease lasted until week 16. FrEBT decreased significantly after 4 weeks. ECP reached statistical significance at week 16 (P = .029). FeNO showed a downward trend, but the decrease did not reach statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

These results might suggest that “after blocking IgE, the eosinophilic inflammation is not suppressed well and fast enough,” the researchers noted. “Consequently, indicators of eosinophilic inflammation may not be suited for early predictors of success of omalizumab treatment,” they added. The drop in EBT after the first dose of omalizumab may predict effectiveness for a particular patient, while the FrEBT results “may mean that it takes longer to suppress the inflammatory process in the vast basin of the small airways,” they noted.

A key limitation of the findings was the small sample size, although the study was designed as a proof-of-concept on which to base sample size calculation for larger trials with EBT as a predictive marker, the researchers said.

However, the EBT and FrEBT signals reached statistical significance, and the results warrant confirmation in larger trials; such confirmation may spare patients from expensive and ineffective treatments, they concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with severe asthma who were new to omalizumab showed significant clinical improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, according to data from a pilot study of 26 adults.

Although omalizumab is approved for severe allergic asthma, not all patients respond well, and are considered nonresponders in the absence of clinical benefits within 16 weeks of starting treatment, wrote Todor A. Popov, MD, of the University Hospital St. Ivan Rilski, Sofia, Bulgaria, and colleagues.

“Since airway inflammation is a cardinal feature of asthma, we reasoned that early changes in its level may determine the subsequent course of the disease,” they said.

In a study published in Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers recruited 26 adults with severe asthma who were new to biologic therapy and eligible for omalizumab. The patients ranged in age from 22 to 70 years, and 13 were men. Patients received omalizumab doses between 150 mg and 375 mg every 2-4 weeks based on body weight and pretreatment serum IgE levels, and they were assessed at baseline and followed for a total of 18 weeks (2-week run-in and 16 weeks of treatment).

Patients rated their overall discomfort from asthma on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Asthma control was assessed via the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and disease-related quality of life was assessed via the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaires (AQLQ). All patients reported significant improvement across all three measures after 2 weeks and through the study period after the first administration of omalizumab at week 0 (P < .001).

Clinical response was based on quantitative indicators of airway and systemic eosinophilic inflammation: fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), eosinophil cationic peptide (ECP), and the temperature of the exhaled air (EBT, exhaled breath temperature). The researchers also measured fractional EBT (FrEBT) by measuring the EBT of central and peripheral airways at the beginning and end of the expiration.

Overall, EBT decreased significantly after 2 weeks, and the decrease lasted until week 16. FrEBT decreased significantly after 4 weeks. ECP reached statistical significance at week 16 (P = .029). FeNO showed a downward trend, but the decrease did not reach statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

These results might suggest that “after blocking IgE, the eosinophilic inflammation is not suppressed well and fast enough,” the researchers noted. “Consequently, indicators of eosinophilic inflammation may not be suited for early predictors of success of omalizumab treatment,” they added. The drop in EBT after the first dose of omalizumab may predict effectiveness for a particular patient, while the FrEBT results “may mean that it takes longer to suppress the inflammatory process in the vast basin of the small airways,” they noted.

A key limitation of the findings was the small sample size, although the study was designed as a proof-of-concept on which to base sample size calculation for larger trials with EBT as a predictive marker, the researchers said.

However, the EBT and FrEBT signals reached statistical significance, and the results warrant confirmation in larger trials; such confirmation may spare patients from expensive and ineffective treatments, they concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with severe asthma who were new to omalizumab showed significant clinical improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, according to data from a pilot study of 26 adults.

Although omalizumab is approved for severe allergic asthma, not all patients respond well, and are considered nonresponders in the absence of clinical benefits within 16 weeks of starting treatment, wrote Todor A. Popov, MD, of the University Hospital St. Ivan Rilski, Sofia, Bulgaria, and colleagues.

“Since airway inflammation is a cardinal feature of asthma, we reasoned that early changes in its level may determine the subsequent course of the disease,” they said.

In a study published in Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers recruited 26 adults with severe asthma who were new to biologic therapy and eligible for omalizumab. The patients ranged in age from 22 to 70 years, and 13 were men. Patients received omalizumab doses between 150 mg and 375 mg every 2-4 weeks based on body weight and pretreatment serum IgE levels, and they were assessed at baseline and followed for a total of 18 weeks (2-week run-in and 16 weeks of treatment).

Patients rated their overall discomfort from asthma on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Asthma control was assessed via the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and disease-related quality of life was assessed via the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaires (AQLQ). All patients reported significant improvement across all three measures after 2 weeks and through the study period after the first administration of omalizumab at week 0 (P < .001).

Clinical response was based on quantitative indicators of airway and systemic eosinophilic inflammation: fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), eosinophil cationic peptide (ECP), and the temperature of the exhaled air (EBT, exhaled breath temperature). The researchers also measured fractional EBT (FrEBT) by measuring the EBT of central and peripheral airways at the beginning and end of the expiration.

Overall, EBT decreased significantly after 2 weeks, and the decrease lasted until week 16. FrEBT decreased significantly after 4 weeks. ECP reached statistical significance at week 16 (P = .029). FeNO showed a downward trend, but the decrease did not reach statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

These results might suggest that “after blocking IgE, the eosinophilic inflammation is not suppressed well and fast enough,” the researchers noted. “Consequently, indicators of eosinophilic inflammation may not be suited for early predictors of success of omalizumab treatment,” they added. The drop in EBT after the first dose of omalizumab may predict effectiveness for a particular patient, while the FrEBT results “may mean that it takes longer to suppress the inflammatory process in the vast basin of the small airways,” they noted.

A key limitation of the findings was the small sample size, although the study was designed as a proof-of-concept on which to base sample size calculation for larger trials with EBT as a predictive marker, the researchers said.

However, the EBT and FrEBT signals reached statistical significance, and the results warrant confirmation in larger trials; such confirmation may spare patients from expensive and ineffective treatments, they concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

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

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

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

All else being equal, I’d prefer to do nothing. Whether this is nihilism, laziness, or experience is a matter of debate. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines on therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) opened a door for withholding treatment for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) in 2016 and kept it open in 2021. I was happy to walk through it and withhold therapy if it wasn’t indicated.

ISSPE is truly a conundrum. With advances in technology, the distal vessels in the lung became visible on commercial CT a little more than 10 years ago. The subsegmental branches are located after the fourth bifurcation of the pulmonary arterial system, and the new technology offered resolution adequate to identify clot in these vessels. But the new technology told us nothing about how to manage clot isolated to the subsegmental vasculature.

Autopsy data say clot in these vessels is common, even in patients who were never diagnosed with VTE while they were alive. To some degree then, the pulmonary arterial system is thought to serve as a filter to prevent clot from crossing to the systemic circulation and causing stroke. This led some to speculate that the subsegmental pulmonary arteries are supposed to contain clot and that we simply couldn’t see it before now. If this theory is correct, the practice of providing anticoagulation for ISSPE could increase bleeding without reducing the risk for VTE recurrence.

Management studies generally supported this concept. In 2007, a trial that was published in JAMA randomized patients to two different diagnostic strategies: ventilation-perfusion (VQ) and CT. CT detected more clot than VQ did, so more anticoagulation was given in the CT arm. Yet, the VTE rate during follow-up was not significantly different between arms. The implication? Some of the clots detected by CT were of lesser clinical significance and didn’t need to be treated.

Meta-analytic data from management trials also suggested that some pulmonary emboli (PE) need not be treated. Data also show when compared with patients who have more proximal PE, those with ISSPE have lower pretest probability for VTE, are less symptomatic, and have a lower burden of coexistent lower extremity thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]).

In response to this data, the CHEST Guidelines began cautiously providing the option for withholding therapy in patients who were diagnosed with ISSPE in 2016. Their recommendations stated that patients should be stratified for recurrence risk and have lower extremity ultrasonography performed to rule out DVT. A patient with ISSPE, a low recurrence risk, and a negative ultrasound can have anticoagulation withheld. This made perfect sense to me based on what I thought I knew at the time.

Recently published data cast doubt on my nihilism. The first prospective study designed specifically to assess the safety of withholding therapy for ISSPE suggests that this practice could be dangerous. How did this happen? The trial was very well done, and the authors enrolled the right population. All of the patients had ISSPE, low recurrence risk, and negative lower extremity ultrasound. The authors were anticipating a 1% VTE rate at 90 days based on prior data but instead found a rate of 3.1% (1.6%-6.1%). They point out that this rate is not different from those seen in patients with more proximal PE who are treated with anticoagulation. However, they acknowledge that it is higher than what’s considered acceptable and warrants therapeutic anticoagulation.

So what should we do now? We treat ISSPE, that’s what. All the arguments for withholding therapy remain valid, the recurrence rate is reasonably low, and none of the recurrent VTEs in the new study were fatal. There’s still no doubt that some patients with PE won’t benefit from anticoagulation. Unfortunately, we currently lack the tools to identify them. The risk-benefit ratio for recurrence versus bleeding will be tighter with ISSPE, particularly when there’s only one clot. Unless the bleeding risk is elevated though, the ratio still favors treatment.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

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

The use of over-the-counter melatonin supplements grew by fivefold over the past 2 decades in the United States, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.

The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”

The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”

For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.

The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.

“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”

Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.

The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.

Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.

According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”

Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”

The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.

Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.

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

The use of over-the-counter melatonin supplements grew by fivefold over the past 2 decades in the United States, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.

The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”

The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”

For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.

The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.

“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”

Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.

The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.

Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.

According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”

Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”

The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.

Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.

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

The use of over-the-counter melatonin supplements grew by fivefold over the past 2 decades in the United States, a new study finds, although only 2% of a recent group of survey respondents said they had taken the sleep aid within the past month.

The findings, reported Feb. 1 in a research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggest that “millions of U.S. individuals are using melatonin,” study coauthor Naima Covassin, PhD, an associate consultant at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “It is important to ask patients who report sleep problems whether they consume melatonin supplements, and these findings should certainly prompt more research in this area.”

The supplements boost the levels of melatonin, a hormone that is linked to the sleep-wake cycle. “Melatonin facilitates our ability to fall asleep at our bedtime by decreasing the natural early evening circadian arousal that helps keep us alert despite our having been awake since the morning,” said David N. Neubauer, MD, a sleep specialist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It isn’t so much that melatonin is sedating, but rather that it turns off arousal.”

For the new study, researchers tracked data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 and focused on respondents aged 20 and older (n = 55,021, mean age, 47.5, 52% women). As the researchers noted, response rates dipped mightily from a high of 84% in 2001-2002 to just 51.9% in 2017-2018.

The study found that the overall reported weighted prevalence of melatonin use grew from 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2%-1.0%) in 1999-2000 to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.9%) in 2017-2018 (linear P = .004). In 93.9% of cases of reported melatonin use, the surveyors confirmed it by checking for supplement bottles.

“These trends were similar in men and women and across age groups,” Dr. Covassin said. “We also found that use of more than 5 mg/day melatonin was not reported till 2005-2006, and it has been increasing since.”

Melatonin supplements are now available in tablets, capsules, gummies, powders, liquids, sprays, and other formulations. Users can even buy CBD-melatonin combos.

The survey doesn’t explore why the respondents used melatonin nor whether they thought it actually helped them. “The study was designed to evaluate the breadth of use of melatonin, rather than its effectiveness as a sleep aid,” Dr. Covassin said.

Dr. Neubauer, who wasn’t associated with the study, said the research seems valid. According to him, melatonin use has likely grown because of marketing and a higher number of products. He added that melatonin products are being manufactured at higher doses, although melatonin has a flat dose-response curve. “Higher doses typically do not have a greater effect,” he said.

According to Dr. Covassin, melatonin is generally considered to be safe, although side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, and headaches have been reported in clinical trials. “This is especially evident when high doses are administered,” Dr. Covassin said. “Other potentially more harmful consequences have also been noted. For instance, it has been found that acute administration of melatonin may decrease glucose tolerance, which may be especially problematic in patients with preexisting vulnerabilities such in those with diabetes. There are also very limited data on whether sustained use is safe in the long run.”

Moving forward, Dr. Covassin said, “we are interested in better understanding consumption of melatonin supplements across different populations as well as the impact of chronic use.”

The study authors are supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Institutes of Health, Sleep Number Corporation (to Mayo Clinic), the Alice Sheets Marriott Professorship, and the Mayo Clinic Marie Ingalls Research Career Development Award.

Dr. Covassin and Dr. Neubauer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, reports having served as a consultant for Respicardia, Baker Tilly, Bayer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and serving on the Sleep Number Research Advisory Board.

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

On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”

Hyperbole, it was not.

Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.

“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.

“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.

Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”

Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”

The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.

Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.

Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.

Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.

In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”

Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”

Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”

“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.

A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.

With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.

A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”

“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.

A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.

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

On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”

Hyperbole, it was not.

Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.

“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.

“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.

Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”

Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”

The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.

Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.

Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.

Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.

In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”

Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”

Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”

“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.

A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.

With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.

A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”

“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.

A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.

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

On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”

Hyperbole, it was not.

Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.

“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.

“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.

Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”

Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”

The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.

Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.

Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.

Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.

In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”

Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”

Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”

“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.

A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.

With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.

A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”

“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.

A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.

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