User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
Baxdrostat slashes BP in resistant hypertension: BrigHTN
CHICAGO – An investigational aldosterone synthase inhibitor could be an effective new treatment to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, reslts of a phase 2 study suggest.
The BrigHTN trial showed systolic blood pressure fell by an average of 20.3 mm Hg, 17.5 mm Hg, and 12.1 mm Hg with baxdrostat 2 mg, 1 mg, and 0.5 mg after 12 weeks follow-up in 248 patients unable to achieve target blood pressure on stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic.
After adjustment for the –9.4 mm Hg change observed in the placebo group, there was a statistically significant difference of 11.0 mm Hg in the 2-mg baxdrostat group (P = .0001) and of 8.1 mm Hg in the 1-mg baxdrostat group (P = .003).
The adjusted change in diastolic blood pressure was significant only for the 2-mg dose (–5.2 mm Hg; P = .004).
Once-daily oral baxdrostat had an acceptable side-effect profile and no patients died.
The study, which was stopped early after meeting criteria for overwhelming efficacy, was presented in the final late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Threading the needle
For at least 20 years, researchers have tried to create a drug that would lower aldosterone levels directly by inhibiting hormone synthesis rather than blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor.
What’s made this extraordinarily difficult is that the enzyme that makes aldosterone synthase and the enzyme required for cortisol synthase, 11-beta-hydroxylase, are 93% sequence similar. Baxdrostat, however, is able to selectively block aldosterone synthase, and thus the production of aldosterone, without also blocking the production of cortisol, explained Mason W. Freeman, MD, lead author of the study and executive vice president of clinical development at CinCor Pharma, which is developing the agent.
“We have beautiful biomarker evidence of not only blood pressure lowering but the mechanism by which that blood pressure reduction is occurring,” he said.
Over 12 weeks of follow-up in the new study, the use of baxdrostat led to decreases in serum aldosterone levels ranging from 3.0 ng/dL with the 0.5-mg dose to 4.9 ng/dL with the 2-mg dose. The 24-hour urinary aldosterone levels decreased with all three doses tested.
Baxdrostat increased plasma renin activity by 3.6, 5.0, and 13.8 mg/mL per hr with the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg doses, respectively, an indicator of its effect on lowering salt and fluid retention, Dr. Freeman said. Serum cortisol levels were not reduced in any of the baxdrostat groups throughout the study.
‘A bright future’
“It seems to have a bright future in the area of resistant hypertension, particularly in patients who are producing too much aldosterone,” said Suzanne Oparil, MD, invited discussant for the study and director of the Vascular Biology and Hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
She noted that aldosterone is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension, which afflicts about 20% of the hypertensive population. Aldosterone antagonists are considered by many to be the best add-on treatment for resistant hypertension and do lower blood pressure.
“But they have major problems,” Dr. Oparil added. “Spironolactone, for example, causes hyperkalemia in many patients and adverse effects such as gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, and feminization.”
Baxdrostat was well tolerated with no serious adverse events deemed related to treatment, Dr. Freeman reported. A total of 18 serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients, 6 of which were in a patient with urosepsis.
Ten adverse events of special interest occurred in eight patients, including one case of hypotension, three cases of hyponatremia, and six cases of hyperkalemia.
Potassium levels ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 mmol/L (6.0-6.3 mEq/L) in three patients and between 5.5 and 5.9 mmol/L (5.5-5.9 mEq/L) on at least two consecutive occasions in three others. Four of the patients were able to resume baxdrostat and complete the trial, whereas two patients discontinued treatment, one of whom was the patient with urosepsis.
Dr. Freeman pointed out that the study population was relatively diverse, with 33%-48% of participants of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity and 23%-32% being Black.
At baseline, all patients had a seated blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg (average 147.8/87.9 mm Hg) on a background therapy that included a diuretic in 100%, an agent targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in 91%-96%, a beta-blocker in 52%-68%, and a calcium channel blocker in 64%-70%.
The study was not designed to test the benefits and risks of aldosterone synthase inhibition beyond 12 weeks and baxdrostat was not compared to alternative antihypertensives, he said. Additional limitations are that medication adherence was based on pill counts rather than drug analysis and enrolling only patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate over 45 mL/min per 1.73m2 reduced the likelihood of hyperkalemia and other adverse events.
Nevertheless, “we think that these data suggest that baxdrostat has the potential to treat disorders associated with aldosterone excess, including hypertension and primary hyperaldosteronism,” Dr. Freeman said.
The intention is to carry the drug forward into additional phase 2 studies in chronic kidney disease and to begin a phase 3 study in hypertension in 2023, he noted.
The study was funded by CinCor Pharma. Dr. Freeman and three coauthors are employees of CinCor and receive stock-based compensation. The remaining authors have a financial relationship with CinRx Pharma, which has an equity stake in CinCor. Dr. Oparil reports grant/research support from Bayer, Higi, and Novartis; and serving on the scientific advisory board/expert committee for CinCor Pharma and Preventric Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – An investigational aldosterone synthase inhibitor could be an effective new treatment to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, reslts of a phase 2 study suggest.
The BrigHTN trial showed systolic blood pressure fell by an average of 20.3 mm Hg, 17.5 mm Hg, and 12.1 mm Hg with baxdrostat 2 mg, 1 mg, and 0.5 mg after 12 weeks follow-up in 248 patients unable to achieve target blood pressure on stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic.
After adjustment for the –9.4 mm Hg change observed in the placebo group, there was a statistically significant difference of 11.0 mm Hg in the 2-mg baxdrostat group (P = .0001) and of 8.1 mm Hg in the 1-mg baxdrostat group (P = .003).
The adjusted change in diastolic blood pressure was significant only for the 2-mg dose (–5.2 mm Hg; P = .004).
Once-daily oral baxdrostat had an acceptable side-effect profile and no patients died.
The study, which was stopped early after meeting criteria for overwhelming efficacy, was presented in the final late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Threading the needle
For at least 20 years, researchers have tried to create a drug that would lower aldosterone levels directly by inhibiting hormone synthesis rather than blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor.
What’s made this extraordinarily difficult is that the enzyme that makes aldosterone synthase and the enzyme required for cortisol synthase, 11-beta-hydroxylase, are 93% sequence similar. Baxdrostat, however, is able to selectively block aldosterone synthase, and thus the production of aldosterone, without also blocking the production of cortisol, explained Mason W. Freeman, MD, lead author of the study and executive vice president of clinical development at CinCor Pharma, which is developing the agent.
“We have beautiful biomarker evidence of not only blood pressure lowering but the mechanism by which that blood pressure reduction is occurring,” he said.
Over 12 weeks of follow-up in the new study, the use of baxdrostat led to decreases in serum aldosterone levels ranging from 3.0 ng/dL with the 0.5-mg dose to 4.9 ng/dL with the 2-mg dose. The 24-hour urinary aldosterone levels decreased with all three doses tested.
Baxdrostat increased plasma renin activity by 3.6, 5.0, and 13.8 mg/mL per hr with the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg doses, respectively, an indicator of its effect on lowering salt and fluid retention, Dr. Freeman said. Serum cortisol levels were not reduced in any of the baxdrostat groups throughout the study.
‘A bright future’
“It seems to have a bright future in the area of resistant hypertension, particularly in patients who are producing too much aldosterone,” said Suzanne Oparil, MD, invited discussant for the study and director of the Vascular Biology and Hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
She noted that aldosterone is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension, which afflicts about 20% of the hypertensive population. Aldosterone antagonists are considered by many to be the best add-on treatment for resistant hypertension and do lower blood pressure.
“But they have major problems,” Dr. Oparil added. “Spironolactone, for example, causes hyperkalemia in many patients and adverse effects such as gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, and feminization.”
Baxdrostat was well tolerated with no serious adverse events deemed related to treatment, Dr. Freeman reported. A total of 18 serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients, 6 of which were in a patient with urosepsis.
Ten adverse events of special interest occurred in eight patients, including one case of hypotension, three cases of hyponatremia, and six cases of hyperkalemia.
Potassium levels ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 mmol/L (6.0-6.3 mEq/L) in three patients and between 5.5 and 5.9 mmol/L (5.5-5.9 mEq/L) on at least two consecutive occasions in three others. Four of the patients were able to resume baxdrostat and complete the trial, whereas two patients discontinued treatment, one of whom was the patient with urosepsis.
Dr. Freeman pointed out that the study population was relatively diverse, with 33%-48% of participants of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity and 23%-32% being Black.
At baseline, all patients had a seated blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg (average 147.8/87.9 mm Hg) on a background therapy that included a diuretic in 100%, an agent targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in 91%-96%, a beta-blocker in 52%-68%, and a calcium channel blocker in 64%-70%.
The study was not designed to test the benefits and risks of aldosterone synthase inhibition beyond 12 weeks and baxdrostat was not compared to alternative antihypertensives, he said. Additional limitations are that medication adherence was based on pill counts rather than drug analysis and enrolling only patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate over 45 mL/min per 1.73m2 reduced the likelihood of hyperkalemia and other adverse events.
Nevertheless, “we think that these data suggest that baxdrostat has the potential to treat disorders associated with aldosterone excess, including hypertension and primary hyperaldosteronism,” Dr. Freeman said.
The intention is to carry the drug forward into additional phase 2 studies in chronic kidney disease and to begin a phase 3 study in hypertension in 2023, he noted.
The study was funded by CinCor Pharma. Dr. Freeman and three coauthors are employees of CinCor and receive stock-based compensation. The remaining authors have a financial relationship with CinRx Pharma, which has an equity stake in CinCor. Dr. Oparil reports grant/research support from Bayer, Higi, and Novartis; and serving on the scientific advisory board/expert committee for CinCor Pharma and Preventric Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – An investigational aldosterone synthase inhibitor could be an effective new treatment to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, reslts of a phase 2 study suggest.
The BrigHTN trial showed systolic blood pressure fell by an average of 20.3 mm Hg, 17.5 mm Hg, and 12.1 mm Hg with baxdrostat 2 mg, 1 mg, and 0.5 mg after 12 weeks follow-up in 248 patients unable to achieve target blood pressure on stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic.
After adjustment for the –9.4 mm Hg change observed in the placebo group, there was a statistically significant difference of 11.0 mm Hg in the 2-mg baxdrostat group (P = .0001) and of 8.1 mm Hg in the 1-mg baxdrostat group (P = .003).
The adjusted change in diastolic blood pressure was significant only for the 2-mg dose (–5.2 mm Hg; P = .004).
Once-daily oral baxdrostat had an acceptable side-effect profile and no patients died.
The study, which was stopped early after meeting criteria for overwhelming efficacy, was presented in the final late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Threading the needle
For at least 20 years, researchers have tried to create a drug that would lower aldosterone levels directly by inhibiting hormone synthesis rather than blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor.
What’s made this extraordinarily difficult is that the enzyme that makes aldosterone synthase and the enzyme required for cortisol synthase, 11-beta-hydroxylase, are 93% sequence similar. Baxdrostat, however, is able to selectively block aldosterone synthase, and thus the production of aldosterone, without also blocking the production of cortisol, explained Mason W. Freeman, MD, lead author of the study and executive vice president of clinical development at CinCor Pharma, which is developing the agent.
“We have beautiful biomarker evidence of not only blood pressure lowering but the mechanism by which that blood pressure reduction is occurring,” he said.
Over 12 weeks of follow-up in the new study, the use of baxdrostat led to decreases in serum aldosterone levels ranging from 3.0 ng/dL with the 0.5-mg dose to 4.9 ng/dL with the 2-mg dose. The 24-hour urinary aldosterone levels decreased with all three doses tested.
Baxdrostat increased plasma renin activity by 3.6, 5.0, and 13.8 mg/mL per hr with the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg doses, respectively, an indicator of its effect on lowering salt and fluid retention, Dr. Freeman said. Serum cortisol levels were not reduced in any of the baxdrostat groups throughout the study.
‘A bright future’
“It seems to have a bright future in the area of resistant hypertension, particularly in patients who are producing too much aldosterone,” said Suzanne Oparil, MD, invited discussant for the study and director of the Vascular Biology and Hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
She noted that aldosterone is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension, which afflicts about 20% of the hypertensive population. Aldosterone antagonists are considered by many to be the best add-on treatment for resistant hypertension and do lower blood pressure.
“But they have major problems,” Dr. Oparil added. “Spironolactone, for example, causes hyperkalemia in many patients and adverse effects such as gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, and feminization.”
Baxdrostat was well tolerated with no serious adverse events deemed related to treatment, Dr. Freeman reported. A total of 18 serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients, 6 of which were in a patient with urosepsis.
Ten adverse events of special interest occurred in eight patients, including one case of hypotension, three cases of hyponatremia, and six cases of hyperkalemia.
Potassium levels ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 mmol/L (6.0-6.3 mEq/L) in three patients and between 5.5 and 5.9 mmol/L (5.5-5.9 mEq/L) on at least two consecutive occasions in three others. Four of the patients were able to resume baxdrostat and complete the trial, whereas two patients discontinued treatment, one of whom was the patient with urosepsis.
Dr. Freeman pointed out that the study population was relatively diverse, with 33%-48% of participants of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity and 23%-32% being Black.
At baseline, all patients had a seated blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg (average 147.8/87.9 mm Hg) on a background therapy that included a diuretic in 100%, an agent targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in 91%-96%, a beta-blocker in 52%-68%, and a calcium channel blocker in 64%-70%.
The study was not designed to test the benefits and risks of aldosterone synthase inhibition beyond 12 weeks and baxdrostat was not compared to alternative antihypertensives, he said. Additional limitations are that medication adherence was based on pill counts rather than drug analysis and enrolling only patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate over 45 mL/min per 1.73m2 reduced the likelihood of hyperkalemia and other adverse events.
Nevertheless, “we think that these data suggest that baxdrostat has the potential to treat disorders associated with aldosterone excess, including hypertension and primary hyperaldosteronism,” Dr. Freeman said.
The intention is to carry the drug forward into additional phase 2 studies in chronic kidney disease and to begin a phase 3 study in hypertension in 2023, he noted.
The study was funded by CinCor Pharma. Dr. Freeman and three coauthors are employees of CinCor and receive stock-based compensation. The remaining authors have a financial relationship with CinRx Pharma, which has an equity stake in CinCor. Dr. Oparil reports grant/research support from Bayer, Higi, and Novartis; and serving on the scientific advisory board/expert committee for CinCor Pharma and Preventric Diagnostics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AHA 2022
Residents react: Has residency become easier or overly difficult?
Medical residents have cleared many hurdles to get where they are, as detailed in Medscape’s Residents Salary and Debt Report 2022 which explains their challenges with compensation and school loans as well as long hours and problematic personal relationships.
Whereas 72% of residents described themselves as “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their professional training experience, only 27% felt that highly about how well they’re paid. Satisfaction levels increased somewhat farther into residency, reaching 35% in year 5.
Do residents have it easier today?
If so, is that rite of passage getting any easier? You’ll get different answers from residents and physicians.
Medscape asked respondents whether their journey to residency was made easier once the Step 1 exam was converted to pass-fail, and interviews brought online, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many residents conceded their journey became easier, less stressful, and less expensive under the new Step 1 formats. One respondent said he was freed up to focus more intently on higher-yield academic goals such as research.
Another respondent called the pass/fail change a “total game-changer,” as it lets applicants apply to all specialties while having other qualifications than test scores considered. A resident who took Step 1 before pass/fail was instituted described the “insurmountable stress associated with studying for Step 1 to get the highest score you possibly could.”
But not all residents liked the difficulty in being able to differentiate themselves, beyond med school pedigrees, in the absence of Step 1 scores.
Meanwhile, some doctors posting comments to the Medscape report strongly disagreed with the idea that residency life is getting harder. They depict residency as a rite of passage under the best of circumstances.
“Whatever issues there may be [today’s residents] are still making eight times what I got and, from what I’ve seen, we had a lot more independent responsibilities,” one physician commenter said.
Other doctors were more sympathetic and worried about the future price to be paid for hardships during residency. “Compensation should not be tied to the willingness to sacrifice the most beautiful years of life,” one commentator wrote.
Online interviews: Pros and cons
Many resident respondents celebrated the opportunity to interview for residency programs online. Some who traveled to in-person interviews before the pandemic said they racked up as much as $10,000 in travel costs, adding to their debt loads.
But not everyone was a fan. Other residents sniped that peers can apply to more residencies and “hoard” interviews, making the competition that much harder.
And how useful are online interviews to a prospective resident? “Virtual interviews are terrible for getting a true sense for a program or even the people,” a 1st-year family medicine resident complained. And it’s harder for an applicant “to shine when you’re on Zoom,” a 1st-year internal medicine resident opined.
Whether to report harassment
In survey, respondents were asked whether they ever witnessed sexual abuse, harassment, or misconduct; and if so, what they did about it. Among those who did, many opted to take no action, fearing retaliation or retribution. “I saw a resident made out to be a ‘problem resident’ when reporting it and then ultimately fired,” one respondent recounted.
Other residents said they felt unsure about the protocol, whom to report to, or even what constituted harassment or misconduct. “I didn’t realize [an incident] was harassment until later,” one resident said. Others thought “minor” or “subtle” incidents did not warrant action; “they are typically microaggressions and appear accepted within the culture of the institution.”
Residents’ confusion heightened when the perpetrator was a patient. “I’m not sure what to do about that,” a respondent acknowledged. An emergency medicine resident added, “most of the time … it is the patients who are acting inappropriately, saying inappropriate things, etc. There is no way to file a complaint like that.”
Rewards and challenges for residents
Among the most rewarding parts of residency that respondents described were developing specific skills such as surgical techniques, job security, and “learning a little day by day” in the words of a 1st-year gastroenterology resident.
Others felt gratified by the chances to help patients and families, their teams, and to advance social justice and health equity.
But challenges abound – chiefly money struggles. A 3rd-year psychiatry resident lamented “being financially strapped in the prime of my life from student loans and low wages.”
Stress and emotional fatigue also came up often as major challenges. “Constantly being told to do more, more presentations, more papers, more research, more studying,” a 5th-year neurosurgery resident bemoaned. “Being expected to be at the top of my game despite being sleep-deprived, depressed, and burned out,” a 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident groused.
But some physician commenters urged residents to look for long-term growth behind the challenges. “Yes, it was hard, but the experience was phenomenal, and I am glad I did it,” one doctor said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical residents have cleared many hurdles to get where they are, as detailed in Medscape’s Residents Salary and Debt Report 2022 which explains their challenges with compensation and school loans as well as long hours and problematic personal relationships.
Whereas 72% of residents described themselves as “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their professional training experience, only 27% felt that highly about how well they’re paid. Satisfaction levels increased somewhat farther into residency, reaching 35% in year 5.
Do residents have it easier today?
If so, is that rite of passage getting any easier? You’ll get different answers from residents and physicians.
Medscape asked respondents whether their journey to residency was made easier once the Step 1 exam was converted to pass-fail, and interviews brought online, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many residents conceded their journey became easier, less stressful, and less expensive under the new Step 1 formats. One respondent said he was freed up to focus more intently on higher-yield academic goals such as research.
Another respondent called the pass/fail change a “total game-changer,” as it lets applicants apply to all specialties while having other qualifications than test scores considered. A resident who took Step 1 before pass/fail was instituted described the “insurmountable stress associated with studying for Step 1 to get the highest score you possibly could.”
But not all residents liked the difficulty in being able to differentiate themselves, beyond med school pedigrees, in the absence of Step 1 scores.
Meanwhile, some doctors posting comments to the Medscape report strongly disagreed with the idea that residency life is getting harder. They depict residency as a rite of passage under the best of circumstances.
“Whatever issues there may be [today’s residents] are still making eight times what I got and, from what I’ve seen, we had a lot more independent responsibilities,” one physician commenter said.
Other doctors were more sympathetic and worried about the future price to be paid for hardships during residency. “Compensation should not be tied to the willingness to sacrifice the most beautiful years of life,” one commentator wrote.
Online interviews: Pros and cons
Many resident respondents celebrated the opportunity to interview for residency programs online. Some who traveled to in-person interviews before the pandemic said they racked up as much as $10,000 in travel costs, adding to their debt loads.
But not everyone was a fan. Other residents sniped that peers can apply to more residencies and “hoard” interviews, making the competition that much harder.
And how useful are online interviews to a prospective resident? “Virtual interviews are terrible for getting a true sense for a program or even the people,” a 1st-year family medicine resident complained. And it’s harder for an applicant “to shine when you’re on Zoom,” a 1st-year internal medicine resident opined.
Whether to report harassment
In survey, respondents were asked whether they ever witnessed sexual abuse, harassment, or misconduct; and if so, what they did about it. Among those who did, many opted to take no action, fearing retaliation or retribution. “I saw a resident made out to be a ‘problem resident’ when reporting it and then ultimately fired,” one respondent recounted.
Other residents said they felt unsure about the protocol, whom to report to, or even what constituted harassment or misconduct. “I didn’t realize [an incident] was harassment until later,” one resident said. Others thought “minor” or “subtle” incidents did not warrant action; “they are typically microaggressions and appear accepted within the culture of the institution.”
Residents’ confusion heightened when the perpetrator was a patient. “I’m not sure what to do about that,” a respondent acknowledged. An emergency medicine resident added, “most of the time … it is the patients who are acting inappropriately, saying inappropriate things, etc. There is no way to file a complaint like that.”
Rewards and challenges for residents
Among the most rewarding parts of residency that respondents described were developing specific skills such as surgical techniques, job security, and “learning a little day by day” in the words of a 1st-year gastroenterology resident.
Others felt gratified by the chances to help patients and families, their teams, and to advance social justice and health equity.
But challenges abound – chiefly money struggles. A 3rd-year psychiatry resident lamented “being financially strapped in the prime of my life from student loans and low wages.”
Stress and emotional fatigue also came up often as major challenges. “Constantly being told to do more, more presentations, more papers, more research, more studying,” a 5th-year neurosurgery resident bemoaned. “Being expected to be at the top of my game despite being sleep-deprived, depressed, and burned out,” a 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident groused.
But some physician commenters urged residents to look for long-term growth behind the challenges. “Yes, it was hard, but the experience was phenomenal, and I am glad I did it,” one doctor said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical residents have cleared many hurdles to get where they are, as detailed in Medscape’s Residents Salary and Debt Report 2022 which explains their challenges with compensation and school loans as well as long hours and problematic personal relationships.
Whereas 72% of residents described themselves as “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their professional training experience, only 27% felt that highly about how well they’re paid. Satisfaction levels increased somewhat farther into residency, reaching 35% in year 5.
Do residents have it easier today?
If so, is that rite of passage getting any easier? You’ll get different answers from residents and physicians.
Medscape asked respondents whether their journey to residency was made easier once the Step 1 exam was converted to pass-fail, and interviews brought online, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many residents conceded their journey became easier, less stressful, and less expensive under the new Step 1 formats. One respondent said he was freed up to focus more intently on higher-yield academic goals such as research.
Another respondent called the pass/fail change a “total game-changer,” as it lets applicants apply to all specialties while having other qualifications than test scores considered. A resident who took Step 1 before pass/fail was instituted described the “insurmountable stress associated with studying for Step 1 to get the highest score you possibly could.”
But not all residents liked the difficulty in being able to differentiate themselves, beyond med school pedigrees, in the absence of Step 1 scores.
Meanwhile, some doctors posting comments to the Medscape report strongly disagreed with the idea that residency life is getting harder. They depict residency as a rite of passage under the best of circumstances.
“Whatever issues there may be [today’s residents] are still making eight times what I got and, from what I’ve seen, we had a lot more independent responsibilities,” one physician commenter said.
Other doctors were more sympathetic and worried about the future price to be paid for hardships during residency. “Compensation should not be tied to the willingness to sacrifice the most beautiful years of life,” one commentator wrote.
Online interviews: Pros and cons
Many resident respondents celebrated the opportunity to interview for residency programs online. Some who traveled to in-person interviews before the pandemic said they racked up as much as $10,000 in travel costs, adding to their debt loads.
But not everyone was a fan. Other residents sniped that peers can apply to more residencies and “hoard” interviews, making the competition that much harder.
And how useful are online interviews to a prospective resident? “Virtual interviews are terrible for getting a true sense for a program or even the people,” a 1st-year family medicine resident complained. And it’s harder for an applicant “to shine when you’re on Zoom,” a 1st-year internal medicine resident opined.
Whether to report harassment
In survey, respondents were asked whether they ever witnessed sexual abuse, harassment, or misconduct; and if so, what they did about it. Among those who did, many opted to take no action, fearing retaliation or retribution. “I saw a resident made out to be a ‘problem resident’ when reporting it and then ultimately fired,” one respondent recounted.
Other residents said they felt unsure about the protocol, whom to report to, or even what constituted harassment or misconduct. “I didn’t realize [an incident] was harassment until later,” one resident said. Others thought “minor” or “subtle” incidents did not warrant action; “they are typically microaggressions and appear accepted within the culture of the institution.”
Residents’ confusion heightened when the perpetrator was a patient. “I’m not sure what to do about that,” a respondent acknowledged. An emergency medicine resident added, “most of the time … it is the patients who are acting inappropriately, saying inappropriate things, etc. There is no way to file a complaint like that.”
Rewards and challenges for residents
Among the most rewarding parts of residency that respondents described were developing specific skills such as surgical techniques, job security, and “learning a little day by day” in the words of a 1st-year gastroenterology resident.
Others felt gratified by the chances to help patients and families, their teams, and to advance social justice and health equity.
But challenges abound – chiefly money struggles. A 3rd-year psychiatry resident lamented “being financially strapped in the prime of my life from student loans and low wages.”
Stress and emotional fatigue also came up often as major challenges. “Constantly being told to do more, more presentations, more papers, more research, more studying,” a 5th-year neurosurgery resident bemoaned. “Being expected to be at the top of my game despite being sleep-deprived, depressed, and burned out,” a 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident groused.
But some physician commenters urged residents to look for long-term growth behind the challenges. “Yes, it was hard, but the experience was phenomenal, and I am glad I did it,” one doctor said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sick call
They call me and I go.
– William Carlos Williams
I never get sick. I’ve never had the flu. When everyone’s got a cold, I’m somehow immune. The last time I threw up was June 29th, 1980. You see, I work out almost daily, eat vegan, and sleep plenty. I drink gallons of pressed juice and throw down a few high-quality supplements. Yes, I’m that guy: The one who never gets sick. Well, I was anyway.
I am no longer that guy since our little girl became a supersocial little toddler. My undefeated welterweight “never-sick” title has been obliterated by multiple knockouts. One was a wicked adenovirus that broke the no-vomit streak. At one point, I lay on the luxury gray tile bathroom floor hoping to go unconscious to make the nausea stop. I actually called out sick that day. Then with a nasty COVID-despite-vaccine infection. I called out again. Later with a hacking lower respiratory – RSV?! – bug. Called out. All of which our 2-year-old blonde, curly-haired vector transmitted to me with remarkable efficiency.
In fact, That’s saying a lot. Our docs, like most, don’t call out sick.
We physicians have legendary stamina. Compared with other professionals, we are no less likely to become ill but a whopping 80% less likely to call out sick.
Presenteeism is our physician version of Omerta, a code of honor to never give in even at the expense of our, or our family’s, health and well-being. Every medical student is regaled with stories of physicians getting an IV before rounds or finishing clinic after their water broke. Why? In part it’s an indoctrination into this thing of ours we call Medicine: An elitist club that admits only those able to pass O-chem and hold diarrhea. But it is also because our medical system is so brittle that the slightest bend causes it to shatter. When I cancel a clinic, patients who have waited weeks for their spot have to be sent home. And for critical cases or those patients who don’t get the message, my already slammed colleagues have to cram the unlucky ones in between already-scheduled appointments. The guilt induced by inconveniencing our colleagues and our patients is more potent than dry heaves. And so we go. Suck it up. Sip ginger ale. Load up on acetaminophen. Carry on. This harms not only us, but also patients whom we put in the path of transmission. We become terrible 2-year-olds.
Of course, it’s not always easy to tell if you’re sick enough to stay home. But the stigma of calling out is so great that we often show up no matter what symptoms. A recent Medscape survey of physicians found that 85% said they had come to work sick in 2022.
We can do better. Perhaps creating sick-leave protocols could help? For example, if you have a fever above 100.4, have contact with someone positive for influenza, are unable to take POs, etc. then stay home. So might building rolling slack into schedules to accommodate the inevitable physician illness, parenting emergency, or death of an beloved uncle. And if there is one thing artificial intelligence could help us with, it would be smart scheduling. Can’t we build algorithms for anticipating and absorbing these predictable events? I’d take that over an AI skin cancer detector any day. Yet this year we’ll struggle through the cold and flu (and COVID) season again and nothing will have changed.
Our daughter hasn’t had hand, foot, and mouth disease yet. It’s not a question of if, but rather when she, and her mom and I, will get it. I hope it happens on a Friday so that my Monday clinic will be bearable when I show up.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]
They call me and I go.
– William Carlos Williams
I never get sick. I’ve never had the flu. When everyone’s got a cold, I’m somehow immune. The last time I threw up was June 29th, 1980. You see, I work out almost daily, eat vegan, and sleep plenty. I drink gallons of pressed juice and throw down a few high-quality supplements. Yes, I’m that guy: The one who never gets sick. Well, I was anyway.
I am no longer that guy since our little girl became a supersocial little toddler. My undefeated welterweight “never-sick” title has been obliterated by multiple knockouts. One was a wicked adenovirus that broke the no-vomit streak. At one point, I lay on the luxury gray tile bathroom floor hoping to go unconscious to make the nausea stop. I actually called out sick that day. Then with a nasty COVID-despite-vaccine infection. I called out again. Later with a hacking lower respiratory – RSV?! – bug. Called out. All of which our 2-year-old blonde, curly-haired vector transmitted to me with remarkable efficiency.
In fact, That’s saying a lot. Our docs, like most, don’t call out sick.
We physicians have legendary stamina. Compared with other professionals, we are no less likely to become ill but a whopping 80% less likely to call out sick.
Presenteeism is our physician version of Omerta, a code of honor to never give in even at the expense of our, or our family’s, health and well-being. Every medical student is regaled with stories of physicians getting an IV before rounds or finishing clinic after their water broke. Why? In part it’s an indoctrination into this thing of ours we call Medicine: An elitist club that admits only those able to pass O-chem and hold diarrhea. But it is also because our medical system is so brittle that the slightest bend causes it to shatter. When I cancel a clinic, patients who have waited weeks for their spot have to be sent home. And for critical cases or those patients who don’t get the message, my already slammed colleagues have to cram the unlucky ones in between already-scheduled appointments. The guilt induced by inconveniencing our colleagues and our patients is more potent than dry heaves. And so we go. Suck it up. Sip ginger ale. Load up on acetaminophen. Carry on. This harms not only us, but also patients whom we put in the path of transmission. We become terrible 2-year-olds.
Of course, it’s not always easy to tell if you’re sick enough to stay home. But the stigma of calling out is so great that we often show up no matter what symptoms. A recent Medscape survey of physicians found that 85% said they had come to work sick in 2022.
We can do better. Perhaps creating sick-leave protocols could help? For example, if you have a fever above 100.4, have contact with someone positive for influenza, are unable to take POs, etc. then stay home. So might building rolling slack into schedules to accommodate the inevitable physician illness, parenting emergency, or death of an beloved uncle. And if there is one thing artificial intelligence could help us with, it would be smart scheduling. Can’t we build algorithms for anticipating and absorbing these predictable events? I’d take that over an AI skin cancer detector any day. Yet this year we’ll struggle through the cold and flu (and COVID) season again and nothing will have changed.
Our daughter hasn’t had hand, foot, and mouth disease yet. It’s not a question of if, but rather when she, and her mom and I, will get it. I hope it happens on a Friday so that my Monday clinic will be bearable when I show up.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]
They call me and I go.
– William Carlos Williams
I never get sick. I’ve never had the flu. When everyone’s got a cold, I’m somehow immune. The last time I threw up was June 29th, 1980. You see, I work out almost daily, eat vegan, and sleep plenty. I drink gallons of pressed juice and throw down a few high-quality supplements. Yes, I’m that guy: The one who never gets sick. Well, I was anyway.
I am no longer that guy since our little girl became a supersocial little toddler. My undefeated welterweight “never-sick” title has been obliterated by multiple knockouts. One was a wicked adenovirus that broke the no-vomit streak. At one point, I lay on the luxury gray tile bathroom floor hoping to go unconscious to make the nausea stop. I actually called out sick that day. Then with a nasty COVID-despite-vaccine infection. I called out again. Later with a hacking lower respiratory – RSV?! – bug. Called out. All of which our 2-year-old blonde, curly-haired vector transmitted to me with remarkable efficiency.
In fact, That’s saying a lot. Our docs, like most, don’t call out sick.
We physicians have legendary stamina. Compared with other professionals, we are no less likely to become ill but a whopping 80% less likely to call out sick.
Presenteeism is our physician version of Omerta, a code of honor to never give in even at the expense of our, or our family’s, health and well-being. Every medical student is regaled with stories of physicians getting an IV before rounds or finishing clinic after their water broke. Why? In part it’s an indoctrination into this thing of ours we call Medicine: An elitist club that admits only those able to pass O-chem and hold diarrhea. But it is also because our medical system is so brittle that the slightest bend causes it to shatter. When I cancel a clinic, patients who have waited weeks for their spot have to be sent home. And for critical cases or those patients who don’t get the message, my already slammed colleagues have to cram the unlucky ones in between already-scheduled appointments. The guilt induced by inconveniencing our colleagues and our patients is more potent than dry heaves. And so we go. Suck it up. Sip ginger ale. Load up on acetaminophen. Carry on. This harms not only us, but also patients whom we put in the path of transmission. We become terrible 2-year-olds.
Of course, it’s not always easy to tell if you’re sick enough to stay home. But the stigma of calling out is so great that we often show up no matter what symptoms. A recent Medscape survey of physicians found that 85% said they had come to work sick in 2022.
We can do better. Perhaps creating sick-leave protocols could help? For example, if you have a fever above 100.4, have contact with someone positive for influenza, are unable to take POs, etc. then stay home. So might building rolling slack into schedules to accommodate the inevitable physician illness, parenting emergency, or death of an beloved uncle. And if there is one thing artificial intelligence could help us with, it would be smart scheduling. Can’t we build algorithms for anticipating and absorbing these predictable events? I’d take that over an AI skin cancer detector any day. Yet this year we’ll struggle through the cold and flu (and COVID) season again and nothing will have changed.
Our daughter hasn’t had hand, foot, and mouth disease yet. It’s not a question of if, but rather when she, and her mom and I, will get it. I hope it happens on a Friday so that my Monday clinic will be bearable when I show up.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]
Optimize HF meds rapidly and fully after hospital discharge: STRONG-HF
CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.
Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).
The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.
Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.
Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.
Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.
The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
A dramatic change
The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”
Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.
Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”
But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.
The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.
The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
How about a fourth drug?
Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.
But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.
STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.
That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.
But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.
John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”
Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.
The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.
“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.
“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.
“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
No restrictions on LVEF
The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.
About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.
In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.
The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.
The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.
They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.
The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).
Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
The COVID effect
The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).
Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.
The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”
Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.
Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”
STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.
Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.
Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).
The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.
Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.
Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.
Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.
The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
A dramatic change
The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”
Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.
Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”
But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.
The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.
The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
How about a fourth drug?
Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.
But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.
STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.
That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.
But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.
John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”
Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.
The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.
“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.
“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.
“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
No restrictions on LVEF
The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.
About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.
In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.
The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.
The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.
They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.
The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).
Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
The COVID effect
The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).
Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.
The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”
Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.
Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”
STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.
Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.
Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).
The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.
Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.
Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.
Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.
The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
A dramatic change
The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”
Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.
Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”
But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.
The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.
The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
How about a fourth drug?
Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.
But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.
STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.
That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.
But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.
John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”
Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.
The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.
“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.
“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.
“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
No restrictions on LVEF
The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.
About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.
In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.
The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.
The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.
They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.
The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).
Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
The COVID effect
The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).
Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.
The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”
Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.
Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”
STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.
Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AHA 2022
Electrolyte disturbances a harbinger of eating disorders?
Electrolyte abnormalities may serve as a precursor to a future eating disorder diagnosis, a finding that may help pinpoint candidates for screening.
Researchers found that adolescents and adults with electrolyte abnormalities on routine outpatient lab work were twice as likely as those without these disturbances to be subsequently diagnosed with an eating disorder.
“These electrolyte abnormalities were in fact seen well ahead (> 1 year on average) of the time when patients were diagnosed with eating disorders,” study investigator Gregory Hundemer, MD, department of nephrology, University of Ottawa, told this news organization.
“Incidentally discovered outpatient electrolyte abnormalities may help to identify individuals who may benefit from more targeted screening into an underlying eating disorder. This, in turn, may allow for earlier diagnosis and therapeutic intervention,” Dr. Hundemer said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Tailored screening?
Electrolyte abnormalities are often found when an individual is diagnosed with an eating disorder, but it’s largely unknown whether electrolyte abnormalities prior to the acute presentation of an eating disorder are associated with the future diagnosis of an eating disorder.
To investigate, the researchers used administrative health data to match 6,970 individuals (mean age, 28 years; 13% male) with an eating disorder diagnosis to 27,878 controls without an eating disorder diagnosis.
They found that individuals with an eating disorder were more likely to have a preceding electrolyte abnormality, compared with peers without an eating disorder (18.4% vs. 7.5%).
An outpatient electrolyte abnormality present 3 years to 30 days prior to diagnosis was associated with about a twofold higher odds for subsequent eating disorder diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 2.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.41).
The median time from the earliest electrolyte abnormality to eating disorder diagnosis was 386 days (range, 157-716 days).
Hypokalemia was the most common electrolyte abnormality (present in 12% of cases vs. 5% of controls), while hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypophosphatemia, and metabolic alkalosis were the most specific for a subsequent eating disorder diagnosis.
Severe hypokalemia (serum potassium levels of 3.0 mmol/L or lower) and severe hyponatremia (serum sodium, 128 mmol/L or lower) were associated with over sevenfold and fivefold higher odds for the diagnosis of an eating disorder, respectively.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued its first-ever statement on screening for eating disorders earlier this year.
The task force concluded that there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults with no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Dr. Hundemer and colleagues believe an incidental electrolyte abnormality may identify candidates at high risk for an underlying eating disorder who many benefit from screening.
Several screening tools of varying complexity have been developed that are validated and accurate in identifying individuals with a potential eating disorder.
They include the SCOFF questionnaire, the Eating Disorder Screen for Primary Care, the Eating Attitudes Test, and the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Health Questionnaire.
Underdiagnosed, undertreated
Offering perspective on the findings, Kamryn T. Eddy, PhD, codirector, Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said the notion “that a physical sign may help to promote eating disorder assessment is important particularly given that early detection can improve outcomes.”
“But this finding appears in the current context of eating disorders going largely underdetected, underdiagnosed, and undertreated across medical and psychiatric settings,” said Dr. Eddy, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“Indeed, eating disorders are prevalent and cut across age, sex, gender, weight, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic strata, and still, many providers do not routinely assess for eating disorders,” Dr. Eddy said.
“I might suggest that perhaps in addition to letting electrolyte abnormalities be a cue to screen for eating disorders, an even more powerful shift toward routine screening and assessment of eating disorders by medical providers be made,” Dr. Eddy said in an interview.
This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hundemer and Dr. Eddy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Electrolyte abnormalities may serve as a precursor to a future eating disorder diagnosis, a finding that may help pinpoint candidates for screening.
Researchers found that adolescents and adults with electrolyte abnormalities on routine outpatient lab work were twice as likely as those without these disturbances to be subsequently diagnosed with an eating disorder.
“These electrolyte abnormalities were in fact seen well ahead (> 1 year on average) of the time when patients were diagnosed with eating disorders,” study investigator Gregory Hundemer, MD, department of nephrology, University of Ottawa, told this news organization.
“Incidentally discovered outpatient electrolyte abnormalities may help to identify individuals who may benefit from more targeted screening into an underlying eating disorder. This, in turn, may allow for earlier diagnosis and therapeutic intervention,” Dr. Hundemer said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Tailored screening?
Electrolyte abnormalities are often found when an individual is diagnosed with an eating disorder, but it’s largely unknown whether electrolyte abnormalities prior to the acute presentation of an eating disorder are associated with the future diagnosis of an eating disorder.
To investigate, the researchers used administrative health data to match 6,970 individuals (mean age, 28 years; 13% male) with an eating disorder diagnosis to 27,878 controls without an eating disorder diagnosis.
They found that individuals with an eating disorder were more likely to have a preceding electrolyte abnormality, compared with peers without an eating disorder (18.4% vs. 7.5%).
An outpatient electrolyte abnormality present 3 years to 30 days prior to diagnosis was associated with about a twofold higher odds for subsequent eating disorder diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 2.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.41).
The median time from the earliest electrolyte abnormality to eating disorder diagnosis was 386 days (range, 157-716 days).
Hypokalemia was the most common electrolyte abnormality (present in 12% of cases vs. 5% of controls), while hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypophosphatemia, and metabolic alkalosis were the most specific for a subsequent eating disorder diagnosis.
Severe hypokalemia (serum potassium levels of 3.0 mmol/L or lower) and severe hyponatremia (serum sodium, 128 mmol/L or lower) were associated with over sevenfold and fivefold higher odds for the diagnosis of an eating disorder, respectively.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued its first-ever statement on screening for eating disorders earlier this year.
The task force concluded that there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults with no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Dr. Hundemer and colleagues believe an incidental electrolyte abnormality may identify candidates at high risk for an underlying eating disorder who many benefit from screening.
Several screening tools of varying complexity have been developed that are validated and accurate in identifying individuals with a potential eating disorder.
They include the SCOFF questionnaire, the Eating Disorder Screen for Primary Care, the Eating Attitudes Test, and the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Health Questionnaire.
Underdiagnosed, undertreated
Offering perspective on the findings, Kamryn T. Eddy, PhD, codirector, Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said the notion “that a physical sign may help to promote eating disorder assessment is important particularly given that early detection can improve outcomes.”
“But this finding appears in the current context of eating disorders going largely underdetected, underdiagnosed, and undertreated across medical and psychiatric settings,” said Dr. Eddy, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“Indeed, eating disorders are prevalent and cut across age, sex, gender, weight, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic strata, and still, many providers do not routinely assess for eating disorders,” Dr. Eddy said.
“I might suggest that perhaps in addition to letting electrolyte abnormalities be a cue to screen for eating disorders, an even more powerful shift toward routine screening and assessment of eating disorders by medical providers be made,” Dr. Eddy said in an interview.
This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hundemer and Dr. Eddy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Electrolyte abnormalities may serve as a precursor to a future eating disorder diagnosis, a finding that may help pinpoint candidates for screening.
Researchers found that adolescents and adults with electrolyte abnormalities on routine outpatient lab work were twice as likely as those without these disturbances to be subsequently diagnosed with an eating disorder.
“These electrolyte abnormalities were in fact seen well ahead (> 1 year on average) of the time when patients were diagnosed with eating disorders,” study investigator Gregory Hundemer, MD, department of nephrology, University of Ottawa, told this news organization.
“Incidentally discovered outpatient electrolyte abnormalities may help to identify individuals who may benefit from more targeted screening into an underlying eating disorder. This, in turn, may allow for earlier diagnosis and therapeutic intervention,” Dr. Hundemer said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Tailored screening?
Electrolyte abnormalities are often found when an individual is diagnosed with an eating disorder, but it’s largely unknown whether electrolyte abnormalities prior to the acute presentation of an eating disorder are associated with the future diagnosis of an eating disorder.
To investigate, the researchers used administrative health data to match 6,970 individuals (mean age, 28 years; 13% male) with an eating disorder diagnosis to 27,878 controls without an eating disorder diagnosis.
They found that individuals with an eating disorder were more likely to have a preceding electrolyte abnormality, compared with peers without an eating disorder (18.4% vs. 7.5%).
An outpatient electrolyte abnormality present 3 years to 30 days prior to diagnosis was associated with about a twofold higher odds for subsequent eating disorder diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 2.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.41).
The median time from the earliest electrolyte abnormality to eating disorder diagnosis was 386 days (range, 157-716 days).
Hypokalemia was the most common electrolyte abnormality (present in 12% of cases vs. 5% of controls), while hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypophosphatemia, and metabolic alkalosis were the most specific for a subsequent eating disorder diagnosis.
Severe hypokalemia (serum potassium levels of 3.0 mmol/L or lower) and severe hyponatremia (serum sodium, 128 mmol/L or lower) were associated with over sevenfold and fivefold higher odds for the diagnosis of an eating disorder, respectively.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued its first-ever statement on screening for eating disorders earlier this year.
The task force concluded that there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults with no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Dr. Hundemer and colleagues believe an incidental electrolyte abnormality may identify candidates at high risk for an underlying eating disorder who many benefit from screening.
Several screening tools of varying complexity have been developed that are validated and accurate in identifying individuals with a potential eating disorder.
They include the SCOFF questionnaire, the Eating Disorder Screen for Primary Care, the Eating Attitudes Test, and the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Health Questionnaire.
Underdiagnosed, undertreated
Offering perspective on the findings, Kamryn T. Eddy, PhD, codirector, Eating Disorders Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said the notion “that a physical sign may help to promote eating disorder assessment is important particularly given that early detection can improve outcomes.”
“But this finding appears in the current context of eating disorders going largely underdetected, underdiagnosed, and undertreated across medical and psychiatric settings,” said Dr. Eddy, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“Indeed, eating disorders are prevalent and cut across age, sex, gender, weight, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic strata, and still, many providers do not routinely assess for eating disorders,” Dr. Eddy said.
“I might suggest that perhaps in addition to letting electrolyte abnormalities be a cue to screen for eating disorders, an even more powerful shift toward routine screening and assessment of eating disorders by medical providers be made,” Dr. Eddy said in an interview.
This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hundemer and Dr. Eddy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Flu vaccination associated with reduced stroke risk
The risk of stroke was about 23% lower in the 6 months following a flu shot, regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or underlying health conditions.
“There is an established link between upper respiratory infection and both heart attack and stroke. This has been very salient in the past few years throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Jessalyn Holodinsky, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow in clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.) told this news organization.
“It is also known that the flu shot can reduce risk of heart attack and hospitalization for those with heart disease,” she said. “Given both of these [observations], we thought it prudent to study whether there is a link between vaccination for influenza and stroke.”
The study was published in the Lancet Public Health.
Large effect size
The investigators analyzed administrative data from 2009 through 2018 from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan, which covers all residents of Alberta. The province provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to residents under the insurance plan.
The research team looked for stroke events such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack. They then analyzed the risk of stroke events among those with or without a flu shot in the previous 6 months. They accounted for multiple factors, including age, sex, income, location, and factors related to stroke risk, such as anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension.
Among the 4.1 million adults included in the researchers’ analysis, about 1.8 million (43%) received at least one vaccination during the study period. Nearly 97,000 people received a flu vaccine in each year they were in the study, including 29,288 who received a shot in all 10 flu seasons included in the study.
About 38,000 stroke events were recorded, including about 34,000 (90%) first stroke events. Among the 10% of strokes that were recurrent events, the maximum number of stroke events in one person was nine.
Overall, patients who received at least one influenza vaccine were more likely to be older, be women, and have higher rates of comorbidities. The vaccinated group had a slightly higher proportion of people who lived in urban areas, but the income levels were similar between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
The crude incidence of stroke was higher among people who had ever received an influenza vaccination, at 1.25%, compared with 0.52% among those who hadn’t been vaccinated. However, after adjusting for age, sex, underlying conditions, and socioeconomic status, recent flu vaccination (that is, in the previous 6 months) was associated with a 23% reduced risk of stroke.
The significant reduction in risk applied to all stroke types, particularly acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. In addition, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk across all ages and risk profiles, except patients without hypertension.
“What we were most surprised by was the sheer magnitude of the effect and that it existed across different adult age groups, for both sexes, and for those with and without risk factors for stroke,” said Dr. Holodinsky.
Vaccination was associated with a larger reduction in stroke risk in men than in women, perhaps because unvaccinated men had a significantly higher baseline risk for stroke than unvaccinated women, the study authors write.
Promoting cardiovascular health
In addition, vaccination was associated with a greater relative reduction in stroke risk in younger age groups, lower income groups, and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anticoagulant use.
Among 2.4 million people observed for the entire study period, vaccination protection increased with the number of vaccines received. People who were vaccinated serially each year had a significantly lower risk of stroke than those who received one shot.
Dr. Holodinsky and colleagues are conducting additional research into influenza vaccination, including stroke risk in children. They’re also investigating whether the reduced risk applies to other vaccinations for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19 and pneumonia.
“We hope that this added effect of vaccination encourages more adults to receive the flu shot,” she said. “One day, vaccinations might be considered a key pillar of cardiovascular health, along with diet, exercise, control of hypertension and high cholesterol, and smoking cessation.”
Future research should also investigate the reasons why adults – particularly people at high risk with underlying conditions – don’t receive recommended influenza vaccines, the study authors wrote.
‘Call to action’
Bahar Behrouzi, an MD-PhD candidate focused on clinical epidemiology at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, said: “There are a variety of observational studies around the world that show that flu vaccine uptake is low among the general population and high-risk persons. In studying these questions, our hope is that we can continue to build confidence in viral respiratory vaccines like the influenza vaccine by continuing to generate rigorous evidence with the latest data.”
Ms. Behrouzi, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk. She and her colleagues have found that flu vaccines were associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including a 45% reduced risk among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
“The broader public health message is for people to advocate for themselves and get the seasonal flu vaccine, especially if they are part of an at-risk group,” she said. “In our studies, we have positioned this message as a call to action not only for the public, but also for health care professionals – particularly specialists such as cardiologists or neurologists – to encourage or remind them to engage in conversation about the broad benefits of vaccination beyond just preventing or reducing the severity of flu infection.”
The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Holodinsky and Ms. Behrouzi have reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The risk of stroke was about 23% lower in the 6 months following a flu shot, regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or underlying health conditions.
“There is an established link between upper respiratory infection and both heart attack and stroke. This has been very salient in the past few years throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Jessalyn Holodinsky, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow in clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.) told this news organization.
“It is also known that the flu shot can reduce risk of heart attack and hospitalization for those with heart disease,” she said. “Given both of these [observations], we thought it prudent to study whether there is a link between vaccination for influenza and stroke.”
The study was published in the Lancet Public Health.
Large effect size
The investigators analyzed administrative data from 2009 through 2018 from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan, which covers all residents of Alberta. The province provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to residents under the insurance plan.
The research team looked for stroke events such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack. They then analyzed the risk of stroke events among those with or without a flu shot in the previous 6 months. They accounted for multiple factors, including age, sex, income, location, and factors related to stroke risk, such as anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension.
Among the 4.1 million adults included in the researchers’ analysis, about 1.8 million (43%) received at least one vaccination during the study period. Nearly 97,000 people received a flu vaccine in each year they were in the study, including 29,288 who received a shot in all 10 flu seasons included in the study.
About 38,000 stroke events were recorded, including about 34,000 (90%) first stroke events. Among the 10% of strokes that were recurrent events, the maximum number of stroke events in one person was nine.
Overall, patients who received at least one influenza vaccine were more likely to be older, be women, and have higher rates of comorbidities. The vaccinated group had a slightly higher proportion of people who lived in urban areas, but the income levels were similar between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
The crude incidence of stroke was higher among people who had ever received an influenza vaccination, at 1.25%, compared with 0.52% among those who hadn’t been vaccinated. However, after adjusting for age, sex, underlying conditions, and socioeconomic status, recent flu vaccination (that is, in the previous 6 months) was associated with a 23% reduced risk of stroke.
The significant reduction in risk applied to all stroke types, particularly acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. In addition, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk across all ages and risk profiles, except patients without hypertension.
“What we were most surprised by was the sheer magnitude of the effect and that it existed across different adult age groups, for both sexes, and for those with and without risk factors for stroke,” said Dr. Holodinsky.
Vaccination was associated with a larger reduction in stroke risk in men than in women, perhaps because unvaccinated men had a significantly higher baseline risk for stroke than unvaccinated women, the study authors write.
Promoting cardiovascular health
In addition, vaccination was associated with a greater relative reduction in stroke risk in younger age groups, lower income groups, and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anticoagulant use.
Among 2.4 million people observed for the entire study period, vaccination protection increased with the number of vaccines received. People who were vaccinated serially each year had a significantly lower risk of stroke than those who received one shot.
Dr. Holodinsky and colleagues are conducting additional research into influenza vaccination, including stroke risk in children. They’re also investigating whether the reduced risk applies to other vaccinations for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19 and pneumonia.
“We hope that this added effect of vaccination encourages more adults to receive the flu shot,” she said. “One day, vaccinations might be considered a key pillar of cardiovascular health, along with diet, exercise, control of hypertension and high cholesterol, and smoking cessation.”
Future research should also investigate the reasons why adults – particularly people at high risk with underlying conditions – don’t receive recommended influenza vaccines, the study authors wrote.
‘Call to action’
Bahar Behrouzi, an MD-PhD candidate focused on clinical epidemiology at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, said: “There are a variety of observational studies around the world that show that flu vaccine uptake is low among the general population and high-risk persons. In studying these questions, our hope is that we can continue to build confidence in viral respiratory vaccines like the influenza vaccine by continuing to generate rigorous evidence with the latest data.”
Ms. Behrouzi, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk. She and her colleagues have found that flu vaccines were associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including a 45% reduced risk among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
“The broader public health message is for people to advocate for themselves and get the seasonal flu vaccine, especially if they are part of an at-risk group,” she said. “In our studies, we have positioned this message as a call to action not only for the public, but also for health care professionals – particularly specialists such as cardiologists or neurologists – to encourage or remind them to engage in conversation about the broad benefits of vaccination beyond just preventing or reducing the severity of flu infection.”
The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Holodinsky and Ms. Behrouzi have reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The risk of stroke was about 23% lower in the 6 months following a flu shot, regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or underlying health conditions.
“There is an established link between upper respiratory infection and both heart attack and stroke. This has been very salient in the past few years throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Jessalyn Holodinsky, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow in clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.) told this news organization.
“It is also known that the flu shot can reduce risk of heart attack and hospitalization for those with heart disease,” she said. “Given both of these [observations], we thought it prudent to study whether there is a link between vaccination for influenza and stroke.”
The study was published in the Lancet Public Health.
Large effect size
The investigators analyzed administrative data from 2009 through 2018 from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan, which covers all residents of Alberta. The province provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to residents under the insurance plan.
The research team looked for stroke events such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack. They then analyzed the risk of stroke events among those with or without a flu shot in the previous 6 months. They accounted for multiple factors, including age, sex, income, location, and factors related to stroke risk, such as anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension.
Among the 4.1 million adults included in the researchers’ analysis, about 1.8 million (43%) received at least one vaccination during the study period. Nearly 97,000 people received a flu vaccine in each year they were in the study, including 29,288 who received a shot in all 10 flu seasons included in the study.
About 38,000 stroke events were recorded, including about 34,000 (90%) first stroke events. Among the 10% of strokes that were recurrent events, the maximum number of stroke events in one person was nine.
Overall, patients who received at least one influenza vaccine were more likely to be older, be women, and have higher rates of comorbidities. The vaccinated group had a slightly higher proportion of people who lived in urban areas, but the income levels were similar between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
The crude incidence of stroke was higher among people who had ever received an influenza vaccination, at 1.25%, compared with 0.52% among those who hadn’t been vaccinated. However, after adjusting for age, sex, underlying conditions, and socioeconomic status, recent flu vaccination (that is, in the previous 6 months) was associated with a 23% reduced risk of stroke.
The significant reduction in risk applied to all stroke types, particularly acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. In addition, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk across all ages and risk profiles, except patients without hypertension.
“What we were most surprised by was the sheer magnitude of the effect and that it existed across different adult age groups, for both sexes, and for those with and without risk factors for stroke,” said Dr. Holodinsky.
Vaccination was associated with a larger reduction in stroke risk in men than in women, perhaps because unvaccinated men had a significantly higher baseline risk for stroke than unvaccinated women, the study authors write.
Promoting cardiovascular health
In addition, vaccination was associated with a greater relative reduction in stroke risk in younger age groups, lower income groups, and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anticoagulant use.
Among 2.4 million people observed for the entire study period, vaccination protection increased with the number of vaccines received. People who were vaccinated serially each year had a significantly lower risk of stroke than those who received one shot.
Dr. Holodinsky and colleagues are conducting additional research into influenza vaccination, including stroke risk in children. They’re also investigating whether the reduced risk applies to other vaccinations for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19 and pneumonia.
“We hope that this added effect of vaccination encourages more adults to receive the flu shot,” she said. “One day, vaccinations might be considered a key pillar of cardiovascular health, along with diet, exercise, control of hypertension and high cholesterol, and smoking cessation.”
Future research should also investigate the reasons why adults – particularly people at high risk with underlying conditions – don’t receive recommended influenza vaccines, the study authors wrote.
‘Call to action’
Bahar Behrouzi, an MD-PhD candidate focused on clinical epidemiology at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, said: “There are a variety of observational studies around the world that show that flu vaccine uptake is low among the general population and high-risk persons. In studying these questions, our hope is that we can continue to build confidence in viral respiratory vaccines like the influenza vaccine by continuing to generate rigorous evidence with the latest data.”
Ms. Behrouzi, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk. She and her colleagues have found that flu vaccines were associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including a 45% reduced risk among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
“The broader public health message is for people to advocate for themselves and get the seasonal flu vaccine, especially if they are part of an at-risk group,” she said. “In our studies, we have positioned this message as a call to action not only for the public, but also for health care professionals – particularly specialists such as cardiologists or neurologists – to encourage or remind them to engage in conversation about the broad benefits of vaccination beyond just preventing or reducing the severity of flu infection.”
The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Holodinsky and Ms. Behrouzi have reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM LANCET PUBLIC HEALTH
Give bacterial diversity a chance: The antibiotic dichotomy
What’s the opposite of an antibiotic?
Everyone knows that LOTME loves a good dichotomy: yin/yang, good/evil, heads/tails, particle/wave, peanut butter/jelly. They’re all great. We’re also big fans of microbiomes, particularly the gut microbiome. But what if we could combine the two? A healthy and nutritious story about the gut microbiome, with a dash of added dichotomy for flavor. Is such a thing even possible? Let’s find out.
First, we need an antibiotic, a drug designed to fight bacterial infections. If you’ve got strep throat, otitis media, or bubonic plague, there’s a good chance you will receive an antibiotic. That antibiotic will kill the bad bacteria that are making you sick, but it will also kill a lot of the good bacteria that inhabit your gut microbiome, which results in side effects like bloating and diarrhea.
It comes down to diversity, explained Elisa Marroquin, PhD, of Texas Christian University (Go Horned Frogs!): “In a human community, we need people that have different professions because we don’t all know how to do every single job. And so the same happens with bacteria. We need lots of different gut bacteria that know how to do different things.”
She and her colleagues reviewed 29 studies published over the last 7 years and found a way to preserve the diversity of a human gut microbiome that’s dealing with an antibiotic. Their solution? Prescribe a probiotic.
The way to fight the effects of stopping a bacterial infection is to provide food for what are, basically, other bacterial infections. Antibiotic/probiotic is a prescription for dichotomy, and it means we managed to combine gut microbiomes with a dichotomy. And you didn’t think we could do it.
The earphone of hearing aids
It’s estimated that up to 75% of people who need hearing aids don’t wear them. Why? Well, there’s the social stigma about not wanting to appear too old, and then there’s the cost factor.
Is there a cheaper, less stigmatizing option to amplify hearing? The answer, according to otolaryngologist Yen-fu Cheng, MD, of Taipei Veterans General Hospital and associates, is wireless earphones. AirPods, if you want to be brand specific.
Airpods can be on the more expensive side – running about $129 for AirPods 2 and $249 for AirPods Pro – but when compared with premium hearing aids ($10,000), or even basic aids (about $1,500), the Apple products come off inexpensive after all.
The team tested the premium and basic hearing aids against the AirPods 2 and the AirPod Pro using Apple’s Live Listen feature, which helps amplify sound through the company’s wireless earphones and iPhones and was initially designed to assist people with normal hearing in situations such as birdwatching.
The AirPods Pro worked just as well as the basic hearing aid but not quite as well as the premium hearing aid in a quiet setting, while the AirPods 2 performed the worst. When tested in a noisy setting, the AirPods Pro was pretty comparable to the premium hearing aid, as long as the noise came from a lateral direction. Neither of the AirPod models did as well as the hearing aids with head-on noises.
Wireless earbuds may not be the perfect solution from a clinical standpoint, but they’re a good start for people who don’t have access to hearing aids, Dr. Cheng noted.
So who says headphones damage your hearing? They might actually help.
Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the computer my soul to keep
Radiation is the boring hazard of space travel. No one dies in a space horror movie because they’ve been slowly exposed to too much cosmic radiation. It’s always “thrown out the airlock” this and “eaten by a xenomorph” that.
Radiation, however, is not something that can be ignored, but it turns out that a potential solution is another science fiction staple: artificial hibernation. Generally in sci-fi, hibernation is a plot convenience to get people from point A to point B in a ship that doesn’t break the laws of physics. Here on Earth, though, it is well known that animals naturally entering a state of torpor during hibernation gain significant resistance to radiation.
The problem, of course, is that humans don’t hibernate, and no matter how hard people who work 100-hour weeks for Elon Musk try, sleeping for months on end is simply something we can’t do. However, a new study shows that it’s possible to induce this torpor state in animals that don’t naturally hibernate. By injecting rats with adenosine 5’-monophosphate monohydrate and keeping them in a room held at 16° C, an international team of scientists successfully induced a synthetic torpor state.
That’s not all they did: The scientists also exposed the hibernating rats to a large dose of radiation approximating that found in deep space. Which isn’t something we’d like to explain to our significant other when we got home from work. “So how was your day?” “Oh, I irradiated a bunch of sleeping rats. … Don’t worry they’re fine!” Which they were. Thanks to the hypoxic and hypothermic state, the tissue was spared damage from the high-energy ion radiation.
Obviously, there’s a big difference between a rat and a human and a lot of work to be done, but the study does show that artificial hibernation is possible. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to fall asleep and wake up light-years away under an alien sky, and we won’t be horrifically mutated or riddled with cancer. If, however, you find yourself in hibernation on your way to Jupiter (or Saturn) to investigate a mysterious black monolith, we suggest sleeping with one eye open and gripping your pillow tight.
What’s the opposite of an antibiotic?
Everyone knows that LOTME loves a good dichotomy: yin/yang, good/evil, heads/tails, particle/wave, peanut butter/jelly. They’re all great. We’re also big fans of microbiomes, particularly the gut microbiome. But what if we could combine the two? A healthy and nutritious story about the gut microbiome, with a dash of added dichotomy for flavor. Is such a thing even possible? Let’s find out.
First, we need an antibiotic, a drug designed to fight bacterial infections. If you’ve got strep throat, otitis media, or bubonic plague, there’s a good chance you will receive an antibiotic. That antibiotic will kill the bad bacteria that are making you sick, but it will also kill a lot of the good bacteria that inhabit your gut microbiome, which results in side effects like bloating and diarrhea.
It comes down to diversity, explained Elisa Marroquin, PhD, of Texas Christian University (Go Horned Frogs!): “In a human community, we need people that have different professions because we don’t all know how to do every single job. And so the same happens with bacteria. We need lots of different gut bacteria that know how to do different things.”
She and her colleagues reviewed 29 studies published over the last 7 years and found a way to preserve the diversity of a human gut microbiome that’s dealing with an antibiotic. Their solution? Prescribe a probiotic.
The way to fight the effects of stopping a bacterial infection is to provide food for what are, basically, other bacterial infections. Antibiotic/probiotic is a prescription for dichotomy, and it means we managed to combine gut microbiomes with a dichotomy. And you didn’t think we could do it.
The earphone of hearing aids
It’s estimated that up to 75% of people who need hearing aids don’t wear them. Why? Well, there’s the social stigma about not wanting to appear too old, and then there’s the cost factor.
Is there a cheaper, less stigmatizing option to amplify hearing? The answer, according to otolaryngologist Yen-fu Cheng, MD, of Taipei Veterans General Hospital and associates, is wireless earphones. AirPods, if you want to be brand specific.
Airpods can be on the more expensive side – running about $129 for AirPods 2 and $249 for AirPods Pro – but when compared with premium hearing aids ($10,000), or even basic aids (about $1,500), the Apple products come off inexpensive after all.
The team tested the premium and basic hearing aids against the AirPods 2 and the AirPod Pro using Apple’s Live Listen feature, which helps amplify sound through the company’s wireless earphones and iPhones and was initially designed to assist people with normal hearing in situations such as birdwatching.
The AirPods Pro worked just as well as the basic hearing aid but not quite as well as the premium hearing aid in a quiet setting, while the AirPods 2 performed the worst. When tested in a noisy setting, the AirPods Pro was pretty comparable to the premium hearing aid, as long as the noise came from a lateral direction. Neither of the AirPod models did as well as the hearing aids with head-on noises.
Wireless earbuds may not be the perfect solution from a clinical standpoint, but they’re a good start for people who don’t have access to hearing aids, Dr. Cheng noted.
So who says headphones damage your hearing? They might actually help.
Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the computer my soul to keep
Radiation is the boring hazard of space travel. No one dies in a space horror movie because they’ve been slowly exposed to too much cosmic radiation. It’s always “thrown out the airlock” this and “eaten by a xenomorph” that.
Radiation, however, is not something that can be ignored, but it turns out that a potential solution is another science fiction staple: artificial hibernation. Generally in sci-fi, hibernation is a plot convenience to get people from point A to point B in a ship that doesn’t break the laws of physics. Here on Earth, though, it is well known that animals naturally entering a state of torpor during hibernation gain significant resistance to radiation.
The problem, of course, is that humans don’t hibernate, and no matter how hard people who work 100-hour weeks for Elon Musk try, sleeping for months on end is simply something we can’t do. However, a new study shows that it’s possible to induce this torpor state in animals that don’t naturally hibernate. By injecting rats with adenosine 5’-monophosphate monohydrate and keeping them in a room held at 16° C, an international team of scientists successfully induced a synthetic torpor state.
That’s not all they did: The scientists also exposed the hibernating rats to a large dose of radiation approximating that found in deep space. Which isn’t something we’d like to explain to our significant other when we got home from work. “So how was your day?” “Oh, I irradiated a bunch of sleeping rats. … Don’t worry they’re fine!” Which they were. Thanks to the hypoxic and hypothermic state, the tissue was spared damage from the high-energy ion radiation.
Obviously, there’s a big difference between a rat and a human and a lot of work to be done, but the study does show that artificial hibernation is possible. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to fall asleep and wake up light-years away under an alien sky, and we won’t be horrifically mutated or riddled with cancer. If, however, you find yourself in hibernation on your way to Jupiter (or Saturn) to investigate a mysterious black monolith, we suggest sleeping with one eye open and gripping your pillow tight.
What’s the opposite of an antibiotic?
Everyone knows that LOTME loves a good dichotomy: yin/yang, good/evil, heads/tails, particle/wave, peanut butter/jelly. They’re all great. We’re also big fans of microbiomes, particularly the gut microbiome. But what if we could combine the two? A healthy and nutritious story about the gut microbiome, with a dash of added dichotomy for flavor. Is such a thing even possible? Let’s find out.
First, we need an antibiotic, a drug designed to fight bacterial infections. If you’ve got strep throat, otitis media, or bubonic plague, there’s a good chance you will receive an antibiotic. That antibiotic will kill the bad bacteria that are making you sick, but it will also kill a lot of the good bacteria that inhabit your gut microbiome, which results in side effects like bloating and diarrhea.
It comes down to diversity, explained Elisa Marroquin, PhD, of Texas Christian University (Go Horned Frogs!): “In a human community, we need people that have different professions because we don’t all know how to do every single job. And so the same happens with bacteria. We need lots of different gut bacteria that know how to do different things.”
She and her colleagues reviewed 29 studies published over the last 7 years and found a way to preserve the diversity of a human gut microbiome that’s dealing with an antibiotic. Their solution? Prescribe a probiotic.
The way to fight the effects of stopping a bacterial infection is to provide food for what are, basically, other bacterial infections. Antibiotic/probiotic is a prescription for dichotomy, and it means we managed to combine gut microbiomes with a dichotomy. And you didn’t think we could do it.
The earphone of hearing aids
It’s estimated that up to 75% of people who need hearing aids don’t wear them. Why? Well, there’s the social stigma about not wanting to appear too old, and then there’s the cost factor.
Is there a cheaper, less stigmatizing option to amplify hearing? The answer, according to otolaryngologist Yen-fu Cheng, MD, of Taipei Veterans General Hospital and associates, is wireless earphones. AirPods, if you want to be brand specific.
Airpods can be on the more expensive side – running about $129 for AirPods 2 and $249 for AirPods Pro – but when compared with premium hearing aids ($10,000), or even basic aids (about $1,500), the Apple products come off inexpensive after all.
The team tested the premium and basic hearing aids against the AirPods 2 and the AirPod Pro using Apple’s Live Listen feature, which helps amplify sound through the company’s wireless earphones and iPhones and was initially designed to assist people with normal hearing in situations such as birdwatching.
The AirPods Pro worked just as well as the basic hearing aid but not quite as well as the premium hearing aid in a quiet setting, while the AirPods 2 performed the worst. When tested in a noisy setting, the AirPods Pro was pretty comparable to the premium hearing aid, as long as the noise came from a lateral direction. Neither of the AirPod models did as well as the hearing aids with head-on noises.
Wireless earbuds may not be the perfect solution from a clinical standpoint, but they’re a good start for people who don’t have access to hearing aids, Dr. Cheng noted.
So who says headphones damage your hearing? They might actually help.
Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the computer my soul to keep
Radiation is the boring hazard of space travel. No one dies in a space horror movie because they’ve been slowly exposed to too much cosmic radiation. It’s always “thrown out the airlock” this and “eaten by a xenomorph” that.
Radiation, however, is not something that can be ignored, but it turns out that a potential solution is another science fiction staple: artificial hibernation. Generally in sci-fi, hibernation is a plot convenience to get people from point A to point B in a ship that doesn’t break the laws of physics. Here on Earth, though, it is well known that animals naturally entering a state of torpor during hibernation gain significant resistance to radiation.
The problem, of course, is that humans don’t hibernate, and no matter how hard people who work 100-hour weeks for Elon Musk try, sleeping for months on end is simply something we can’t do. However, a new study shows that it’s possible to induce this torpor state in animals that don’t naturally hibernate. By injecting rats with adenosine 5’-monophosphate monohydrate and keeping them in a room held at 16° C, an international team of scientists successfully induced a synthetic torpor state.
That’s not all they did: The scientists also exposed the hibernating rats to a large dose of radiation approximating that found in deep space. Which isn’t something we’d like to explain to our significant other when we got home from work. “So how was your day?” “Oh, I irradiated a bunch of sleeping rats. … Don’t worry they’re fine!” Which they were. Thanks to the hypoxic and hypothermic state, the tissue was spared damage from the high-energy ion radiation.
Obviously, there’s a big difference between a rat and a human and a lot of work to be done, but the study does show that artificial hibernation is possible. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to fall asleep and wake up light-years away under an alien sky, and we won’t be horrifically mutated or riddled with cancer. If, however, you find yourself in hibernation on your way to Jupiter (or Saturn) to investigate a mysterious black monolith, we suggest sleeping with one eye open and gripping your pillow tight.
‘A huge deal’: Millions have long COVID, and more are expected
with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.
With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.
“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.
“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.
It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.
The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.
A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.
More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”
This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.
In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.
The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.
“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.
“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities
Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.
Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well.
While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.
“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.
“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”
Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.
Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.
“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”
Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.
In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.
Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school.
“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.
“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
Reducing the risk
Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.
“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.
“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.
But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.
“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.
A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.
“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.
With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.
“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.
“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.
It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.
The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.
A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.
More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”
This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.
In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.
The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.
“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.
“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities
Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.
Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well.
While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.
“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.
“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”
Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.
Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.
“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”
Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.
In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.
Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school.
“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.
“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
Reducing the risk
Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.
“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.
“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.
But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.
“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.
A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.
“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.
With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.
“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.
“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.
It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.
The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.
A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.
More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”
This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.
In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.
The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.
“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.
“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities
Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.
Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well.
While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.
“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.
“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”
Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.
Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.
“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”
Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.
In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.
Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school.
“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.
“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
Reducing the risk
Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.
“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.
“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.
But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.
“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.
A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.
“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Is there a doctor on the plane? Tips for providing in-flight assistance
In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.
as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.
The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.
When a physician is faced with an in-flight emergency, the medical team includes the physician himself, medical ground control, and the flight attendants, said Dr. Ho. Requirements may vary among airlines, but all flight attendants will be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or basic life support, as well as use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).
Physician call centers (medical ground control) can provide additional assistance remotely, she said.
The in-flight medical bag
Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.
The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.
An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.
Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
How to handle an in-flight emergency
Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.
Legal lessons
Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.
The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”
Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.
as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.
The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.
When a physician is faced with an in-flight emergency, the medical team includes the physician himself, medical ground control, and the flight attendants, said Dr. Ho. Requirements may vary among airlines, but all flight attendants will be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or basic life support, as well as use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).
Physician call centers (medical ground control) can provide additional assistance remotely, she said.
The in-flight medical bag
Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.
The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.
An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.
Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
How to handle an in-flight emergency
Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.
Legal lessons
Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.
The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”
Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.
as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.
The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.
When a physician is faced with an in-flight emergency, the medical team includes the physician himself, medical ground control, and the flight attendants, said Dr. Ho. Requirements may vary among airlines, but all flight attendants will be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or basic life support, as well as use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).
Physician call centers (medical ground control) can provide additional assistance remotely, she said.
The in-flight medical bag
Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.
The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.
An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.
Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
How to handle an in-flight emergency
Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.
Legal lessons
Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.
The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”
Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACEP 2022
OSA raises risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke
compared with controls, based on data from 303 individuals.
OSA has become a common chronic disease, and cardiovascular diseases including AFib also are known independent risk factors associated with OSA, Anna Hojager, MD, of Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have shown a significant increase in AFib risk in OSA patients with severe disease, but the prevalence of undiagnosed AFib in OSA patients has not been explored.
In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers enrolled 238 adults with severe OSA (based on apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or higher) and 65 with mild or no OSA (based on an AHI of less than 15). The mean AHI across all participants was 34.2, and ranged from 0.2 to 115.8.
Participants underwent heart rhythm monitoring using a home system or standard ECG for 7 days; they were instructed to carry the device at all times except when showering or sweating heavily. The primary outcome was the detection of AFib, defined as at least one period of 30 seconds or longer with an irregular heart rhythm but without detectable evidence of another diagnosis. Sleep was assessed for one night using a portable sleep monitoring device. All participants were examined at baseline and measured for blood pressure, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and ECG.
Overall, AFib occurred in 21 patients with moderate to severe OSA and 1 patient with mild/no OSA (8.8% vs. 1.5%, P = .045). The majority of patients across both groups had hypertension (66%) and dyslipidemia (77.6%), but the severe OSA group was more likely to be dysregulated and to have unknown prediabetes. Participants who were deemed candidates for anticoagulation therapy were referred for additional treatment. None of the 22 total patients with AFib had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 68.2% had normal ejection fraction and ventricle function.
The researchers noted that no guidelines currently exist for systematic opportunistic screening for comorbidities in OSA patients, although the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends patient education as part of a multidisciplinary chronic disease management strategy. The high prevalence of AFib in OSA patients, as seen in the current study, “might warrant a recommendation of screening for paroxysmal [AFib] and could be valuable in the management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with OSA,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and absence of polysomnography to assess OSA, the researchers noted. However, the study has the highest known prevalence of silent AFib in patients with moderate to severe OSA, and supports the value of screening and management for known comorbidities of OSA.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
compared with controls, based on data from 303 individuals.
OSA has become a common chronic disease, and cardiovascular diseases including AFib also are known independent risk factors associated with OSA, Anna Hojager, MD, of Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have shown a significant increase in AFib risk in OSA patients with severe disease, but the prevalence of undiagnosed AFib in OSA patients has not been explored.
In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers enrolled 238 adults with severe OSA (based on apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or higher) and 65 with mild or no OSA (based on an AHI of less than 15). The mean AHI across all participants was 34.2, and ranged from 0.2 to 115.8.
Participants underwent heart rhythm monitoring using a home system or standard ECG for 7 days; they were instructed to carry the device at all times except when showering or sweating heavily. The primary outcome was the detection of AFib, defined as at least one period of 30 seconds or longer with an irregular heart rhythm but without detectable evidence of another diagnosis. Sleep was assessed for one night using a portable sleep monitoring device. All participants were examined at baseline and measured for blood pressure, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and ECG.
Overall, AFib occurred in 21 patients with moderate to severe OSA and 1 patient with mild/no OSA (8.8% vs. 1.5%, P = .045). The majority of patients across both groups had hypertension (66%) and dyslipidemia (77.6%), but the severe OSA group was more likely to be dysregulated and to have unknown prediabetes. Participants who were deemed candidates for anticoagulation therapy were referred for additional treatment. None of the 22 total patients with AFib had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 68.2% had normal ejection fraction and ventricle function.
The researchers noted that no guidelines currently exist for systematic opportunistic screening for comorbidities in OSA patients, although the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends patient education as part of a multidisciplinary chronic disease management strategy. The high prevalence of AFib in OSA patients, as seen in the current study, “might warrant a recommendation of screening for paroxysmal [AFib] and could be valuable in the management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with OSA,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and absence of polysomnography to assess OSA, the researchers noted. However, the study has the highest known prevalence of silent AFib in patients with moderate to severe OSA, and supports the value of screening and management for known comorbidities of OSA.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
compared with controls, based on data from 303 individuals.
OSA has become a common chronic disease, and cardiovascular diseases including AFib also are known independent risk factors associated with OSA, Anna Hojager, MD, of Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have shown a significant increase in AFib risk in OSA patients with severe disease, but the prevalence of undiagnosed AFib in OSA patients has not been explored.
In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers enrolled 238 adults with severe OSA (based on apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or higher) and 65 with mild or no OSA (based on an AHI of less than 15). The mean AHI across all participants was 34.2, and ranged from 0.2 to 115.8.
Participants underwent heart rhythm monitoring using a home system or standard ECG for 7 days; they were instructed to carry the device at all times except when showering or sweating heavily. The primary outcome was the detection of AFib, defined as at least one period of 30 seconds or longer with an irregular heart rhythm but without detectable evidence of another diagnosis. Sleep was assessed for one night using a portable sleep monitoring device. All participants were examined at baseline and measured for blood pressure, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and ECG.
Overall, AFib occurred in 21 patients with moderate to severe OSA and 1 patient with mild/no OSA (8.8% vs. 1.5%, P = .045). The majority of patients across both groups had hypertension (66%) and dyslipidemia (77.6%), but the severe OSA group was more likely to be dysregulated and to have unknown prediabetes. Participants who were deemed candidates for anticoagulation therapy were referred for additional treatment. None of the 22 total patients with AFib had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 68.2% had normal ejection fraction and ventricle function.
The researchers noted that no guidelines currently exist for systematic opportunistic screening for comorbidities in OSA patients, although the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends patient education as part of a multidisciplinary chronic disease management strategy. The high prevalence of AFib in OSA patients, as seen in the current study, “might warrant a recommendation of screening for paroxysmal [AFib] and could be valuable in the management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with OSA,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and absence of polysomnography to assess OSA, the researchers noted. However, the study has the highest known prevalence of silent AFib in patients with moderate to severe OSA, and supports the value of screening and management for known comorbidities of OSA.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM SLEEP MEDICINE