Clinician Reviews

Long COVID most often strikes seniors and adults, but children are also affected, even though they get less attention, new research shows.

Experts noted that the disease poses particular challenges for children and the doctors who treat them.

Parents and doctors need to be on the lookout for symptoms of long COVID in children and teens that might be easily missed or misdiagnosed, according to physicians and family groups.

Children are at lower risk for contracting COVID and often experience milder symptoms. But the virus is now widespread, and a recent study found that around 16% of pediatric patients with COVID go on to develop symptoms that last more than 3 months – the working definition of long COVID.

Parents and doctors are calling for more studies and more awareness.

Diane Sheehan, who lives outside Charlotte, N.C., says she was an active person and is now permanently disabled from long COVID. Her teenage son has it too and is still recovering.

He contracted COVID after a school event, she said. He had a mild case, but then he started experiencing dizziness and would even experience loss of consciousness when he stood up suddenly. After he contracted the virus a second time, he was bedridden for 8 months.

The staff at Hackensack Meridian Health, a pediatric long COVID clinic in New Jersey, has been working with area schools to help teachers and school nurses recognize possible long COVID in children and young people. The clinic is one of about a dozen in the United States that specializes in pediatric cases.

Katherine Clouser, MD, a pediatric hospital medicine specialist, has been with the clinic since it opened in 2021, and she’s seen a steady flow of patients. Some get better, but she sees a few new cases each week.

“We are seeing children who are having a difficult time returning to school and sports,” she said.

The clinic is having success with a mix of approaches, including intensive rehabilitation, talk therapy, and some off-label use of nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), an antiviral now being studied as a treatment for long COVID through a National Institutes of Health clinical trials initiative that was announced last month.

Treatment depends on symptoms and is determined on a case-by-case basis, Dr. Clouser said.

Families of her patients are grateful, she added.

“We hear a lot of parents who were desperate for someone to believe them – or someone who knows about it,” she said.

A recent review of more than 30 studies with about 15,000 participants concluded that 16.2% (95% confidence interval, 8.5%-28.6%) of the pediatric participants experienced one or more persistent symptoms of long COVID at least 3 months after acute infection.

Estimates of the number of children and youth with long COVID have varied widely. A 2022 study put the number at more than 25% of cases, but the American Academy of Pediatrics notes that estimates of the percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 who go on to have long COVID range from 2% to 66%.

The federal Recover Initiative has enrolled more than 10,000 children and youth – a number it plans to double – and studies of electronic health records are underway. The Recover pediatric team is also setting up a cohort that they plan to follow into 2025.

Some clinics are having luck treating young people with approaches ranging from special diets to off-label medication.

David W. Miller, MD, who runs the long COVID clinic at the UH Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, said he’s seen about 250 patients.

A warning sign of long COVID in children is profound fatigue, he said.

“It’s the most common symptom,” Dr. Miller said. “They feel like they have the flu all the time.”

Many also experience orthostatic hypotension on standing, triggering dizziness.

He said his team targets symptom groups. Initial management consists of a diet without sugar or refined carbohydrates. Skipping pasta and sweets can be hard for young people, but Dr. Miller said sometimes the diet alone helps.

Many have vitamin D and iron deficiencies. Others need help getting a good night’s sleep. He’s treated 50 with off-label low-dose naltrexone.

Some people with long COVID – both young and old – complain about being misdiagnosed as having depression. Dr. Miller says he see a lot of anxiety – some situational and some biochemical – in pediatric patients. But he cautions doctors not to treat their illness solely as a mental health problem.

His advice: If a young person or child experiences a major change in his or her regular level of functioning or has multiple COVID symptoms that don’t go away after several months, parents and doctors should consider long COVID as a possible cause.

Dr. Miller said most of his patients get better over time with some treatments: “We see improvement in the majority of kids who can stick to the regimen,” such as a sugar-free diet, supplements, and adequate sleep. Recovery has been slow and incomplete for Diane Sheehan and her son. She was training as a permanent make-up artist, she said, but now has hand tremors that make work impossible.

She has found doctors who treat some of her symptoms with antihistamines, and her son has benefited from physical therapy.

But for now, her son is passing on a scholarship he was awarded to attend North Carolina State University this year. Instead, he’s living at home and going to a local college.

Ms. Sheehan urges parents to be on the alert for signs that their children might have long COVID, which can be confused with many other conditions.

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

Long COVID most often strikes seniors and adults, but children are also affected, even though they get less attention, new research shows.

Experts noted that the disease poses particular challenges for children and the doctors who treat them.

Parents and doctors need to be on the lookout for symptoms of long COVID in children and teens that might be easily missed or misdiagnosed, according to physicians and family groups.

Children are at lower risk for contracting COVID and often experience milder symptoms. But the virus is now widespread, and a recent study found that around 16% of pediatric patients with COVID go on to develop symptoms that last more than 3 months – the working definition of long COVID.

Parents and doctors are calling for more studies and more awareness.

Diane Sheehan, who lives outside Charlotte, N.C., says she was an active person and is now permanently disabled from long COVID. Her teenage son has it too and is still recovering.

He contracted COVID after a school event, she said. He had a mild case, but then he started experiencing dizziness and would even experience loss of consciousness when he stood up suddenly. After he contracted the virus a second time, he was bedridden for 8 months.

The staff at Hackensack Meridian Health, a pediatric long COVID clinic in New Jersey, has been working with area schools to help teachers and school nurses recognize possible long COVID in children and young people. The clinic is one of about a dozen in the United States that specializes in pediatric cases.

Katherine Clouser, MD, a pediatric hospital medicine specialist, has been with the clinic since it opened in 2021, and she’s seen a steady flow of patients. Some get better, but she sees a few new cases each week.

“We are seeing children who are having a difficult time returning to school and sports,” she said.

The clinic is having success with a mix of approaches, including intensive rehabilitation, talk therapy, and some off-label use of nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), an antiviral now being studied as a treatment for long COVID through a National Institutes of Health clinical trials initiative that was announced last month.

Treatment depends on symptoms and is determined on a case-by-case basis, Dr. Clouser said.

Families of her patients are grateful, she added.

“We hear a lot of parents who were desperate for someone to believe them – or someone who knows about it,” she said.

A recent review of more than 30 studies with about 15,000 participants concluded that 16.2% (95% confidence interval, 8.5%-28.6%) of the pediatric participants experienced one or more persistent symptoms of long COVID at least 3 months after acute infection.

Estimates of the number of children and youth with long COVID have varied widely. A 2022 study put the number at more than 25% of cases, but the American Academy of Pediatrics notes that estimates of the percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 who go on to have long COVID range from 2% to 66%.

The federal Recover Initiative has enrolled more than 10,000 children and youth – a number it plans to double – and studies of electronic health records are underway. The Recover pediatric team is also setting up a cohort that they plan to follow into 2025.

Some clinics are having luck treating young people with approaches ranging from special diets to off-label medication.

David W. Miller, MD, who runs the long COVID clinic at the UH Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, said he’s seen about 250 patients.

A warning sign of long COVID in children is profound fatigue, he said.

“It’s the most common symptom,” Dr. Miller said. “They feel like they have the flu all the time.”

Many also experience orthostatic hypotension on standing, triggering dizziness.

He said his team targets symptom groups. Initial management consists of a diet without sugar or refined carbohydrates. Skipping pasta and sweets can be hard for young people, but Dr. Miller said sometimes the diet alone helps.

Many have vitamin D and iron deficiencies. Others need help getting a good night’s sleep. He’s treated 50 with off-label low-dose naltrexone.

Some people with long COVID – both young and old – complain about being misdiagnosed as having depression. Dr. Miller says he see a lot of anxiety – some situational and some biochemical – in pediatric patients. But he cautions doctors not to treat their illness solely as a mental health problem.

His advice: If a young person or child experiences a major change in his or her regular level of functioning or has multiple COVID symptoms that don’t go away after several months, parents and doctors should consider long COVID as a possible cause.

Dr. Miller said most of his patients get better over time with some treatments: “We see improvement in the majority of kids who can stick to the regimen,” such as a sugar-free diet, supplements, and adequate sleep. Recovery has been slow and incomplete for Diane Sheehan and her son. She was training as a permanent make-up artist, she said, but now has hand tremors that make work impossible.

She has found doctors who treat some of her symptoms with antihistamines, and her son has benefited from physical therapy.

But for now, her son is passing on a scholarship he was awarded to attend North Carolina State University this year. Instead, he’s living at home and going to a local college.

Ms. Sheehan urges parents to be on the alert for signs that their children might have long COVID, which can be confused with many other conditions.

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

Long COVID most often strikes seniors and adults, but children are also affected, even though they get less attention, new research shows.

Experts noted that the disease poses particular challenges for children and the doctors who treat them.

Parents and doctors need to be on the lookout for symptoms of long COVID in children and teens that might be easily missed or misdiagnosed, according to physicians and family groups.

Children are at lower risk for contracting COVID and often experience milder symptoms. But the virus is now widespread, and a recent study found that around 16% of pediatric patients with COVID go on to develop symptoms that last more than 3 months – the working definition of long COVID.

Parents and doctors are calling for more studies and more awareness.

Diane Sheehan, who lives outside Charlotte, N.C., says she was an active person and is now permanently disabled from long COVID. Her teenage son has it too and is still recovering.

He contracted COVID after a school event, she said. He had a mild case, but then he started experiencing dizziness and would even experience loss of consciousness when he stood up suddenly. After he contracted the virus a second time, he was bedridden for 8 months.

The staff at Hackensack Meridian Health, a pediatric long COVID clinic in New Jersey, has been working with area schools to help teachers and school nurses recognize possible long COVID in children and young people. The clinic is one of about a dozen in the United States that specializes in pediatric cases.

Katherine Clouser, MD, a pediatric hospital medicine specialist, has been with the clinic since it opened in 2021, and she’s seen a steady flow of patients. Some get better, but she sees a few new cases each week.

“We are seeing children who are having a difficult time returning to school and sports,” she said.

The clinic is having success with a mix of approaches, including intensive rehabilitation, talk therapy, and some off-label use of nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), an antiviral now being studied as a treatment for long COVID through a National Institutes of Health clinical trials initiative that was announced last month.

Treatment depends on symptoms and is determined on a case-by-case basis, Dr. Clouser said.

Families of her patients are grateful, she added.

“We hear a lot of parents who were desperate for someone to believe them – or someone who knows about it,” she said.

A recent review of more than 30 studies with about 15,000 participants concluded that 16.2% (95% confidence interval, 8.5%-28.6%) of the pediatric participants experienced one or more persistent symptoms of long COVID at least 3 months after acute infection.

Estimates of the number of children and youth with long COVID have varied widely. A 2022 study put the number at more than 25% of cases, but the American Academy of Pediatrics notes that estimates of the percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 who go on to have long COVID range from 2% to 66%.

The federal Recover Initiative has enrolled more than 10,000 children and youth – a number it plans to double – and studies of electronic health records are underway. The Recover pediatric team is also setting up a cohort that they plan to follow into 2025.

Some clinics are having luck treating young people with approaches ranging from special diets to off-label medication.

David W. Miller, MD, who runs the long COVID clinic at the UH Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, said he’s seen about 250 patients.

A warning sign of long COVID in children is profound fatigue, he said.

“It’s the most common symptom,” Dr. Miller said. “They feel like they have the flu all the time.”

Many also experience orthostatic hypotension on standing, triggering dizziness.

He said his team targets symptom groups. Initial management consists of a diet without sugar or refined carbohydrates. Skipping pasta and sweets can be hard for young people, but Dr. Miller said sometimes the diet alone helps.

Many have vitamin D and iron deficiencies. Others need help getting a good night’s sleep. He’s treated 50 with off-label low-dose naltrexone.

Some people with long COVID – both young and old – complain about being misdiagnosed as having depression. Dr. Miller says he see a lot of anxiety – some situational and some biochemical – in pediatric patients. But he cautions doctors not to treat their illness solely as a mental health problem.

His advice: If a young person or child experiences a major change in his or her regular level of functioning or has multiple COVID symptoms that don’t go away after several months, parents and doctors should consider long COVID as a possible cause.

Dr. Miller said most of his patients get better over time with some treatments: “We see improvement in the majority of kids who can stick to the regimen,” such as a sugar-free diet, supplements, and adequate sleep. Recovery has been slow and incomplete for Diane Sheehan and her son. She was training as a permanent make-up artist, she said, but now has hand tremors that make work impossible.

She has found doctors who treat some of her symptoms with antihistamines, and her son has benefited from physical therapy.

But for now, her son is passing on a scholarship he was awarded to attend North Carolina State University this year. Instead, he’s living at home and going to a local college.

Ms. Sheehan urges parents to be on the alert for signs that their children might have long COVID, which can be confused with many other conditions.

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

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Despite the recent uptick in leprosy cases in Central Florida, the disease is very rare, and casual contact with an infected person is likely to not result in transmission, according to Jose A. Lucar, MD.

“Contrary to historical beliefs, leprosy is not highly contagious,” Dr. Lucar, an infectious disease physician and associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For reasons that have to do with the makeup of genes that affect their immune system, most people are not susceptible to acquire leprosy. It’s really a small percentage of the population. It does require prolonged contact with someone with untreated leprosy – over several months – to acquire an infection. So, the risk from any type of casual contact is low.”

Dr. Lucar

According to a research letter published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, the number of reported leprosy cases has more than doubled in the past decade. Of the 159 new cases reported nationwide in 2020, Florida accounted for about one-fifth of cases, with most limited to the central part of the state. “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born," and currently, about one-third of leprosy cases are in individuals born in the United States, he noted.

The research letter described a case of leprosy in a 54-year-old man who worked in landscaping, who sought treatment at a dermatology clinic in Central Florida in 2022 for a painful and progressive erythematous rash. The lesions began on his distal extensor extremities and progressed to involve his trunk and face. According to the report, the man denied any domestic or foreign travel, exposure to armadillos (a known source of transmission), prolonged contact with immigrants from leprosy-endemic countries, or connections with someone known to have leprosy. The authors concluded that the case “adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that central Florida represents an endemic location for leprosy. Travel to this area, even in the absence of other risk factors, should prompt consideration of leprosy in the appropriate clinical context.”

Dr. Lucar said that the mechanism of leprosy transmission is not fully understood, but armadillos, which typically traverse the southern United States, are naturally infected with the bacteria that causes leprosy. “It’s possible that they can spread it to people,” he said. “People who have occupations or hobbies that put them in potential contact with wildlife should avoid any close contact with armadillos. There’s also a discussion of whether [the spike in leprosy cases] may have to do with climate change. That is not yet confirmed. It’s not entirely clear why there’s been a recent rise. It remains an area of investigation.”

Meanwhile, clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion in patients who present with skin lesions compatible with leprosy. “These are typically discolored or numb patches on the skin,” Dr. Lucar said. “This can range from a single or a few lesions to very extensive involvement of the skin. The diminished sensation or loss of sensation within those skin patches is an important sign. There’s a loss of skin color but sometimes they can be reddish.” He emphasized that leprosy “does not spread easily from person to person; casual contact will not spread leprosy. It’s important for the public to understand that.”

Dr. Lucar reported no disclosures.

Despite the recent uptick in leprosy cases in Central Florida, the disease is very rare, and casual contact with an infected person is likely to not result in transmission, according to Jose A. Lucar, MD.

“Contrary to historical beliefs, leprosy is not highly contagious,” Dr. Lucar, an infectious disease physician and associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For reasons that have to do with the makeup of genes that affect their immune system, most people are not susceptible to acquire leprosy. It’s really a small percentage of the population. It does require prolonged contact with someone with untreated leprosy – over several months – to acquire an infection. So, the risk from any type of casual contact is low.”

Dr. Lucar

According to a research letter published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, the number of reported leprosy cases has more than doubled in the past decade. Of the 159 new cases reported nationwide in 2020, Florida accounted for about one-fifth of cases, with most limited to the central part of the state. “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born," and currently, about one-third of leprosy cases are in individuals born in the United States, he noted.

The research letter described a case of leprosy in a 54-year-old man who worked in landscaping, who sought treatment at a dermatology clinic in Central Florida in 2022 for a painful and progressive erythematous rash. The lesions began on his distal extensor extremities and progressed to involve his trunk and face. According to the report, the man denied any domestic or foreign travel, exposure to armadillos (a known source of transmission), prolonged contact with immigrants from leprosy-endemic countries, or connections with someone known to have leprosy. The authors concluded that the case “adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that central Florida represents an endemic location for leprosy. Travel to this area, even in the absence of other risk factors, should prompt consideration of leprosy in the appropriate clinical context.”

Dr. Lucar said that the mechanism of leprosy transmission is not fully understood, but armadillos, which typically traverse the southern United States, are naturally infected with the bacteria that causes leprosy. “It’s possible that they can spread it to people,” he said. “People who have occupations or hobbies that put them in potential contact with wildlife should avoid any close contact with armadillos. There’s also a discussion of whether [the spike in leprosy cases] may have to do with climate change. That is not yet confirmed. It’s not entirely clear why there’s been a recent rise. It remains an area of investigation.”

Meanwhile, clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion in patients who present with skin lesions compatible with leprosy. “These are typically discolored or numb patches on the skin,” Dr. Lucar said. “This can range from a single or a few lesions to very extensive involvement of the skin. The diminished sensation or loss of sensation within those skin patches is an important sign. There’s a loss of skin color but sometimes they can be reddish.” He emphasized that leprosy “does not spread easily from person to person; casual contact will not spread leprosy. It’s important for the public to understand that.”

Dr. Lucar reported no disclosures.

Despite the recent uptick in leprosy cases in Central Florida, the disease is very rare, and casual contact with an infected person is likely to not result in transmission, according to Jose A. Lucar, MD.

“Contrary to historical beliefs, leprosy is not highly contagious,” Dr. Lucar, an infectious disease physician and associate professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For reasons that have to do with the makeup of genes that affect their immune system, most people are not susceptible to acquire leprosy. It’s really a small percentage of the population. It does require prolonged contact with someone with untreated leprosy – over several months – to acquire an infection. So, the risk from any type of casual contact is low.”

Dr. Lucar

According to a research letter published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, the number of reported leprosy cases has more than doubled in the past decade. Of the 159 new cases reported nationwide in 2020, Florida accounted for about one-fifth of cases, with most limited to the central part of the state. “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born “In the U.S., there have been 150-250 cases reported each year over the past several years,” said Dr. Lucar, who was not affiliated with the research letter. “What seems to have changed is that since 2015, there has been a rise in cases in people who are U.S.-born," and currently, about one-third of leprosy cases are in individuals born in the United States, he noted.

The research letter described a case of leprosy in a 54-year-old man who worked in landscaping, who sought treatment at a dermatology clinic in Central Florida in 2022 for a painful and progressive erythematous rash. The lesions began on his distal extensor extremities and progressed to involve his trunk and face. According to the report, the man denied any domestic or foreign travel, exposure to armadillos (a known source of transmission), prolonged contact with immigrants from leprosy-endemic countries, or connections with someone known to have leprosy. The authors concluded that the case “adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that central Florida represents an endemic location for leprosy. Travel to this area, even in the absence of other risk factors, should prompt consideration of leprosy in the appropriate clinical context.”

Dr. Lucar said that the mechanism of leprosy transmission is not fully understood, but armadillos, which typically traverse the southern United States, are naturally infected with the bacteria that causes leprosy. “It’s possible that they can spread it to people,” he said. “People who have occupations or hobbies that put them in potential contact with wildlife should avoid any close contact with armadillos. There’s also a discussion of whether [the spike in leprosy cases] may have to do with climate change. That is not yet confirmed. It’s not entirely clear why there’s been a recent rise. It remains an area of investigation.”

Meanwhile, clinicians should keep a high level of suspicion in patients who present with skin lesions compatible with leprosy. “These are typically discolored or numb patches on the skin,” Dr. Lucar said. “This can range from a single or a few lesions to very extensive involvement of the skin. The diminished sensation or loss of sensation within those skin patches is an important sign. There’s a loss of skin color but sometimes they can be reddish.” He emphasized that leprosy “does not spread easily from person to person; casual contact will not spread leprosy. It’s important for the public to understand that.”

Dr. Lucar reported no disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5 – from the Omicron family – now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July. 

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation. 

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29 – the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.
 

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading – but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.”
 

What the official numbers say

The CDC no longer updates its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review. They stopped in May 2023 when the federal public health emergency ended.

But the agency continues to track COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ED visits, and deaths in different ways. The key takeaways include 9,056 new hospitalizations reported for the week ending July 29, 2023. That is relatively low, compared with July 30, 2022, when the weekly new hospitalization numbers topped 44,000. 

“Last year, we saw a summer wave with cases peaking around mid-July. In that sense, our summer wave is coming a bit later than last year,” said Pavitra Roychoudhury, PhD, an assistant professor and researcher in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“It’s unclear how high the peak will be during this current wave. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, as well as the number of hospitalizations, are currently lower than this time last year.” 

For part of the pandemic, the CDC recommended people monitor COVID numbers in their own communities. But the agency’s local guidance on COVID is tied to hospital admission levels, which are currently low for more than 99% of the country, even if they are increasing. 

So, while it’s good news that hospitalization numbers are smaller, it means the agency’s ability to identify local outbreaks or hot spots of SARS-CoV-2 is now more limited. 

It’s not just an uptick in hospitalizations nationwide, as other COVID-19 indicators, including ED visits, positive tests, and wastewater levels, are increasing across the United States. 

In terms of other metrics: 

• On June 19, 0.47% of ED visits resulted in a positive COVID diagnosis. On Aug. 4, that rate had more than doubled to 1.1%. 
• On July 29, 8.9% of people who took a COVID test reported a positive result. The positivity rate has been increasing since June 10, when 4.1% of tests came back positive. This figure only includes test results reported to the CDC. Results of home testing remain largely unknown. 
• The weekly percentage of deaths related to COVID-19 was 1% as of July 29. That’s low, compared with previous rates. For example, for the week ending July 30, 2022, it was 5.8%.

What about new COVID vaccines?

As long as the general public continue to make informed decisions and get the new Omicron vaccine or booster once it’s available, experts predict lower hospitalization rates this winter. 

“Everyone should get the Omicron booster when it becomes available,” recommended Dean Winslow, MD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

In the meantime, “it is important to emphasize that COVID-19 is going to be with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. Since the symptoms linked to these newer Omicron subvariants are generally milder than with earlier variants, “if one has even mild cold symptoms, it is a good idea to test yourself for COVID-19 and start treatment early if one is elderly or otherwise at high risk for severe disease.”

Dr. Schaffner remains optimistic for now. “We anticipate that the vaccines we currently have available, and certainly the vaccine that is being developed for this fall, will continue to prevent severe disease associated with this virus.”

Although it’s difficult to predict an exact time line, Dr. Schaffner said they could be available by the end of September. 

His predictions assume “that we don’t have a new nasty variant that crops up somewhere in the world,” he said. “[If] things continue to move the way they have been, we anticipate that this vaccine ... will be really effective and help us keep out of the hospital during this winter, when we expect more of an increase of COVID once again.” 

Asked for his outlook on vaccine recommendations, Dr. Camins was less certain. “It is too soon to tell.” Guidance on COVID shots will be based on results of ongoing studies. “It would be prudent, however, for everyone to plan on getting the flu shot in September.”

Stay alert and stay realistic

Cautious optimism and a call to remain vigilant seem like the consensus at the moment. While the numbers remain low so far and the uptick in new cases and hospitalizations are relatively small, compared with past scenarios, “it makes sense to boost our anti-Omicron antibody levels with immunizations before fall and winter,” Dr. Liu said. 

“It’s just advisable for everyone – especially those who are at higher risk for hospitalization or death – to be aware,” Dr. Camins said, “so they can form their own decisions to participate in activities that may put them at risk for contracting COVID-19.”

While respiratory virus work best at keeping people with the flu, COVID, or RSV out of the hospital, they’re not as good at preventing milder infections. Dr. Schaffner said: “If we don’t expect perfection, we won’t be so disappointed.”

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

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Presenting obesity as a chronic medical condition, rather than as a failure to eat less and move more, may improve self-esteem among patients with obesity and enhance their relationships with their doctors, a new study suggests.

In an online study, patients with obesity reported significantly less internalized weight bias and significantly enhanced perceptions of positive communication with their medical providers after watching a video of a doctor who framed obesity as a treatable medical condition, compared with a video of a doctor who emphasized willpower.

“Recent research has identified the dominant role that biology (both genetics as well as homeostatic, hedonic, and executive brain systems) and environment, rather than willpower, play in the development of obesity and the resistance to weight loss,” wrote study authors Sara English, a medical student, and Michael Vallis, MD, associate professor of family medicine, both at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. “Yet the false narrative that ideal or goal weight can be achieved by eating less and moving more using willpower continues to dominate the public narrative.”

The findings were published in Clinical Obesity.
 

Medical complexity

The public discussion generally places all responsibility for the health outcomes of obesity on the patient. As a result, patients with obesity face bias and stigma from the public and the health care system, wrote the authors.

This stigmatization contributes to increased mortality and morbidity by promoting maladaptive eating behaviors and stress. It also causes mistrust of health care professionals, which, in turn, leads to worse health outcomes and increased health care costs.

The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for obesity management in adults emphasize that obesity is complex and that nonbehavioral factors strongly influence it. They recommend that treatment focus on improving patient-centered health outcomes and address the root causes of obesity, instead of focusing on weight loss alone.

In the present study, Ms. English and Dr. Vallis evaluated how presenting obesity as a treatable medical condition affected participants’ internalized weight bias and their perceived relationship with their health care provider. They asked 61 patients with obesity (average age, 49 years; average body mass index, 41 kg/m²) to watch two videos, the first showing a doctor endorsing the traditional “eat less, move more approach,” and the second showing a doctor describing obesity as a chronic, treatable medical condition.

Nearly half (49.5%) of participants reported that their health care provider rarely or never discusses weight loss, and almost two-thirds of participants (64%) reported feeling stigmatized by their health care provider because of their weight at least some of the time.

After having watched each video, participants were asked to imagine that they were being treated by the corresponding doctor and to complete two measures: the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS), which measures the degree to which a respondent believes the negative stereotypes about obese people, and the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale (PHCPCS), which assesses the quality of patient–health care provider communication.

Virtually all participants preferred the care provider in the video with the revised presentation of obesity. Only one preferred the traditional video. The video with the revised presentation was associated with significant reductions in internalized weight bias. Participants’ WBIS total score decreased from 4.49 to 3.36 (P < .001). The revised narrative video also had a positive effect on patients’ perception of their health care providers. The PHCPCS total score increased from 2.65 to 4.20 (P < .001).
 

A chronic disease

In a comment, Yoni Freedhoff, MD, associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, said: “If you’re asking me if it is a good idea to treat obesity like a chronic disease, the answer would be yes, we absolutely should. It is a chronic disease, and it shouldn’t have a treatment paradigm different from the other chronic diseases.” Dr. Freedhoff did not participate in the study.

“We certainly don’t blame patients for having other chronic conditions,” Dr. Freedhoff added. “We don’t have a narrative that, in order for them to qualify for medication or other treatment options, they have to audition for them by failing lifestyle approaches first. And yet, I’d say at least 85% of chronic noncommunicable diseases have lifestyle factors, but obesity is the only one where we consider that there is a necessity for these lifestyle changes, as if there have been studies demonstrating durable and reproducible outcomes for lifestyle in obesity. There have not.” 

Telling patients and doctors that obesity is a chronic disease driven by biology, not a failure of willpower, is going to reduce stigma, “which is what this study was able to demonstrate to some degree,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

“What is more stigmatizing? Being told that if you just try hard enough, you’ll succeed, and if you don’t succeed, the corollary, of course, is that you did not try hard enough? Versus, you’ve got a medical condition where you’ve got biological drivers beyond your locus of control, affecting behaviors that, in turn, contribute to your adiposity? I’m pretty sure the second statement will have far less impact on a person’s internalized weight bias than what we’ve unfortunately been doing up until now with the focus on willpower,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

No funding for the study was reported. Ms. English and Dr. Vallis reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Freedhoff reported receiving clinical grants from Novo Nordisk.

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

Presenting obesity as a chronic medical condition, rather than as a failure to eat less and move more, may improve self-esteem among patients with obesity and enhance their relationships with their doctors, a new study suggests.

In an online study, patients with obesity reported significantly less internalized weight bias and significantly enhanced perceptions of positive communication with their medical providers after watching a video of a doctor who framed obesity as a treatable medical condition, compared with a video of a doctor who emphasized willpower.

“Recent research has identified the dominant role that biology (both genetics as well as homeostatic, hedonic, and executive brain systems) and environment, rather than willpower, play in the development of obesity and the resistance to weight loss,” wrote study authors Sara English, a medical student, and Michael Vallis, MD, associate professor of family medicine, both at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. “Yet the false narrative that ideal or goal weight can be achieved by eating less and moving more using willpower continues to dominate the public narrative.”

The findings were published in Clinical Obesity.
 

Medical complexity

The public discussion generally places all responsibility for the health outcomes of obesity on the patient. As a result, patients with obesity face bias and stigma from the public and the health care system, wrote the authors.

This stigmatization contributes to increased mortality and morbidity by promoting maladaptive eating behaviors and stress. It also causes mistrust of health care professionals, which, in turn, leads to worse health outcomes and increased health care costs.

The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for obesity management in adults emphasize that obesity is complex and that nonbehavioral factors strongly influence it. They recommend that treatment focus on improving patient-centered health outcomes and address the root causes of obesity, instead of focusing on weight loss alone.

In the present study, Ms. English and Dr. Vallis evaluated how presenting obesity as a treatable medical condition affected participants’ internalized weight bias and their perceived relationship with their health care provider. They asked 61 patients with obesity (average age, 49 years; average body mass index, 41 kg/m²) to watch two videos, the first showing a doctor endorsing the traditional “eat less, move more approach,” and the second showing a doctor describing obesity as a chronic, treatable medical condition.

Nearly half (49.5%) of participants reported that their health care provider rarely or never discusses weight loss, and almost two-thirds of participants (64%) reported feeling stigmatized by their health care provider because of their weight at least some of the time.

After having watched each video, participants were asked to imagine that they were being treated by the corresponding doctor and to complete two measures: the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS), which measures the degree to which a respondent believes the negative stereotypes about obese people, and the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale (PHCPCS), which assesses the quality of patient–health care provider communication.

Virtually all participants preferred the care provider in the video with the revised presentation of obesity. Only one preferred the traditional video. The video with the revised presentation was associated with significant reductions in internalized weight bias. Participants’ WBIS total score decreased from 4.49 to 3.36 (P < .001). The revised narrative video also had a positive effect on patients’ perception of their health care providers. The PHCPCS total score increased from 2.65 to 4.20 (P < .001).
 

A chronic disease

In a comment, Yoni Freedhoff, MD, associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, said: “If you’re asking me if it is a good idea to treat obesity like a chronic disease, the answer would be yes, we absolutely should. It is a chronic disease, and it shouldn’t have a treatment paradigm different from the other chronic diseases.” Dr. Freedhoff did not participate in the study.

“We certainly don’t blame patients for having other chronic conditions,” Dr. Freedhoff added. “We don’t have a narrative that, in order for them to qualify for medication or other treatment options, they have to audition for them by failing lifestyle approaches first. And yet, I’d say at least 85% of chronic noncommunicable diseases have lifestyle factors, but obesity is the only one where we consider that there is a necessity for these lifestyle changes, as if there have been studies demonstrating durable and reproducible outcomes for lifestyle in obesity. There have not.” 

Telling patients and doctors that obesity is a chronic disease driven by biology, not a failure of willpower, is going to reduce stigma, “which is what this study was able to demonstrate to some degree,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

“What is more stigmatizing? Being told that if you just try hard enough, you’ll succeed, and if you don’t succeed, the corollary, of course, is that you did not try hard enough? Versus, you’ve got a medical condition where you’ve got biological drivers beyond your locus of control, affecting behaviors that, in turn, contribute to your adiposity? I’m pretty sure the second statement will have far less impact on a person’s internalized weight bias than what we’ve unfortunately been doing up until now with the focus on willpower,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

No funding for the study was reported. Ms. English and Dr. Vallis reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Freedhoff reported receiving clinical grants from Novo Nordisk.

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

Presenting obesity as a chronic medical condition, rather than as a failure to eat less and move more, may improve self-esteem among patients with obesity and enhance their relationships with their doctors, a new study suggests.

In an online study, patients with obesity reported significantly less internalized weight bias and significantly enhanced perceptions of positive communication with their medical providers after watching a video of a doctor who framed obesity as a treatable medical condition, compared with a video of a doctor who emphasized willpower.

“Recent research has identified the dominant role that biology (both genetics as well as homeostatic, hedonic, and executive brain systems) and environment, rather than willpower, play in the development of obesity and the resistance to weight loss,” wrote study authors Sara English, a medical student, and Michael Vallis, MD, associate professor of family medicine, both at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. “Yet the false narrative that ideal or goal weight can be achieved by eating less and moving more using willpower continues to dominate the public narrative.”

The findings were published in Clinical Obesity.
 

Medical complexity

The public discussion generally places all responsibility for the health outcomes of obesity on the patient. As a result, patients with obesity face bias and stigma from the public and the health care system, wrote the authors.

This stigmatization contributes to increased mortality and morbidity by promoting maladaptive eating behaviors and stress. It also causes mistrust of health care professionals, which, in turn, leads to worse health outcomes and increased health care costs.

The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for obesity management in adults emphasize that obesity is complex and that nonbehavioral factors strongly influence it. They recommend that treatment focus on improving patient-centered health outcomes and address the root causes of obesity, instead of focusing on weight loss alone.

In the present study, Ms. English and Dr. Vallis evaluated how presenting obesity as a treatable medical condition affected participants’ internalized weight bias and their perceived relationship with their health care provider. They asked 61 patients with obesity (average age, 49 years; average body mass index, 41 kg/m²) to watch two videos, the first showing a doctor endorsing the traditional “eat less, move more approach,” and the second showing a doctor describing obesity as a chronic, treatable medical condition.

Nearly half (49.5%) of participants reported that their health care provider rarely or never discusses weight loss, and almost two-thirds of participants (64%) reported feeling stigmatized by their health care provider because of their weight at least some of the time.

After having watched each video, participants were asked to imagine that they were being treated by the corresponding doctor and to complete two measures: the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS), which measures the degree to which a respondent believes the negative stereotypes about obese people, and the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale (PHCPCS), which assesses the quality of patient–health care provider communication.

Virtually all participants preferred the care provider in the video with the revised presentation of obesity. Only one preferred the traditional video. The video with the revised presentation was associated with significant reductions in internalized weight bias. Participants’ WBIS total score decreased from 4.49 to 3.36 (P < .001). The revised narrative video also had a positive effect on patients’ perception of their health care providers. The PHCPCS total score increased from 2.65 to 4.20 (P < .001).
 

A chronic disease

In a comment, Yoni Freedhoff, MD, associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, said: “If you’re asking me if it is a good idea to treat obesity like a chronic disease, the answer would be yes, we absolutely should. It is a chronic disease, and it shouldn’t have a treatment paradigm different from the other chronic diseases.” Dr. Freedhoff did not participate in the study.

“We certainly don’t blame patients for having other chronic conditions,” Dr. Freedhoff added. “We don’t have a narrative that, in order for them to qualify for medication or other treatment options, they have to audition for them by failing lifestyle approaches first. And yet, I’d say at least 85% of chronic noncommunicable diseases have lifestyle factors, but obesity is the only one where we consider that there is a necessity for these lifestyle changes, as if there have been studies demonstrating durable and reproducible outcomes for lifestyle in obesity. There have not.” 

Telling patients and doctors that obesity is a chronic disease driven by biology, not a failure of willpower, is going to reduce stigma, “which is what this study was able to demonstrate to some degree,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

“What is more stigmatizing? Being told that if you just try hard enough, you’ll succeed, and if you don’t succeed, the corollary, of course, is that you did not try hard enough? Versus, you’ve got a medical condition where you’ve got biological drivers beyond your locus of control, affecting behaviors that, in turn, contribute to your adiposity? I’m pretty sure the second statement will have far less impact on a person’s internalized weight bias than what we’ve unfortunately been doing up until now with the focus on willpower,” Dr. Freedhoff said.

No funding for the study was reported. Ms. English and Dr. Vallis reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Freedhoff reported receiving clinical grants from Novo Nordisk.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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