Cardiology News

Using the 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline target of systolic blood pressure (BP) < 120 mm Hg, 66% of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) would be eligible for BP lowering, according to a study from Korea.

This represents an added > 10% of patients compared with two earlier guidelines, and these patients have a high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Hyeok-Hee Lee, MD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

London_England/Thinkstock

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“New candidates for BP-lowering treatment per the 2021 KDIGO guideline account for a substantial proportion of the total CKD population and bear significantly high CVD risk,” the researchers concluded.

“Undoubtedly, a multipronged approach will be required to address the swelling number of people needing more intense treatment, especially against a background of falling rates of BP control in the general community,” Alexander G. Logan, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Let’s not forget hypertension is the number one killer today,” Valentin Fuster, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who is editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, stressed in a podcast that accompanied the article.

“Only 50% of individuals know of their blood pressure, and from this, less than half are properly treated,” he said.

“Today the details of knowing blood pressure levels appear to dominate over the huge ignorance of not knowing about blood pressure at all. Let’s think more and more about this reality,” he urged.
 

Three guidelines, two study objectives

The researchers compared three guidelines:

• The 2021 KDIGO guidelines, with a target systolic BP of < 120 mm Hg (largely based on the SPRINT trial).
• The 2012 KDIGO guidelines, with a target BP of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria and ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
• The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) BP guideline target of < 130/80 mm Hg.

The study had two objectives:

• To examine the proportions of concordance and discordance between the three guidelines among adults with CKD based on cross-sectional data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES).
• To evaluate the association of each concordance/discordance group with cardiovascular outcomes of patients in the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database.

For the first objective, the researchers identified 1,939 adults with CKD from the 2011-2014 survey cycles of KNHANES. Patients were a median age of 59 and 51% were men.

Comparison of the KDIGO 2021 versus 2012 BP targets showed that 50% of patients had BP above both targets; 16% had BP above the KDIGO 2021 target only; 4% had BP above the KDIGO 2012 target only; and 30% had BP control within both targets.

Comparison of the KDIGO 2021 versus 2017 ACC/AHA BP targets showed that 55% of patients had BP above both targets; 11% had BP above the KDIGO 2021 target only; 5% had BP above the 2017 ACC/AHA target only; and 29% had BP control within both targets.

For the second objective, using the NHIS database, researchers identified 412,167 adults with CKD who had routine health examinations during 2009 and 2010. The patients were a median age of 65 and 44% were men.

During a median follow-up of 10 years, the patients had 37,912 incident CVD events, defined as the first hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure, or death from CVD.

The adjusted risk of a composite CVD event was higher in patients with BP above the 2021 KDIGO target only (HR, 1.28) or above both the 2012 and 2021 KDIGO targets (HR, 1.52), compared to patients who had BP within both targets.

The adjusted risk of a composite CVD event was also higher in patients with BP above the 2021 KDIGO target only (HR, 1.18) or above both the 2021 KDIGO target and the 2017 ACC/AHA target (HR, 1.41), compared with patients who had BP within both targets.
 

Editorialist highlights three study aspects

Dr. Fuster noted three main points made by Dr. Logan.

First, the KDIGO 2021 guideline is based on office blood pressure, measured according to the procedure used in the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. However, the SPRINT ambulatory BP ancillary study found that daytime ambulatory systolic BP was 6.8 mm Hg higher in the < 120 mm Hg group than clinic systolic BP that was measured with an automated BP device, mostly without study personnel.

Second, Dr. Logan noted that “not surprisingly, the investigators showed that the weighted proportion of adults with CKD eligible for BP lowering was highest (66.1%) according to 2021 KDIGO guideline,” compared with the two earlier guidelines.

The findings by Dr. Lee and colleagues align with those of a study that used data from the 2015-2018 U.S. NHANES to estimate the proportion of U.S. adults with CKD eligible for BP lowering according to the 2021 KDIGO guidelines, Dr. Logan added. The study found that 69% of U.S. adults (roughly 24.5 million) should correct their BP.

Third, the study in Korea showed a small percentage of patients (3%-5% of the total) had elevated diastolic BP but controlled systolic BP (< 120 mm Hg) with no increased risk of CVD compared to a reference group of patients with well-controlled BP.

“There is a paucity of evidence examining the relationship between diastolic hypertension and outcomes independently from systolic BP level in CKD patients,” Dr. Logan wrote. Similarly, Dr. Lee and colleagues identified this as an area for further research.

This work was supported by the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors and editorialist have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using the 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline target of systolic blood pressure (BP) < 120 mm Hg, 66% of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) would be eligible for BP lowering, according to a study from Korea.

This represents an added > 10% of patients compared with two earlier guidelines, and these patients have a high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Hyeok-Hee Lee, MD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

London_England/Thinkstock

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“New candidates for BP-lowering treatment per the 2021 KDIGO guideline account for a substantial proportion of the total CKD population and bear significantly high CVD risk,” the researchers concluded.

“Undoubtedly, a multipronged approach will be required to address the swelling number of people needing more intense treatment, especially against a background of falling rates of BP control in the general community,” Alexander G. Logan, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Let’s not forget hypertension is the number one killer today,” Valentin Fuster, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who is editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, stressed in a podcast that accompanied the article.

“Only 50% of individuals know of their blood pressure, and from this, less than half are properly treated,” he said.

“Today the details of knowing blood pressure levels appear to dominate over the huge ignorance of not knowing about blood pressure at all. Let’s think more and more about this reality,” he urged.
 

Three guidelines, two study objectives

The researchers compared three guidelines:

• The 2021 KDIGO guidelines, with a target systolic BP of < 120 mm Hg (largely based on the SPRINT trial).
• The 2012 KDIGO guidelines, with a target BP of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria and ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
• The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) BP guideline target of < 130/80 mm Hg.

The study had two objectives:

• To examine the proportions of concordance and discordance between the three guidelines among adults with CKD based on cross-sectional data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES).
• To evaluate the association of each concordance/discordance group with cardiovascular outcomes of patients in the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database.

For the first objective, the researchers identified 1,939 adults with CKD from the 2011-2014 survey cycles of KNHANES. Patients were a median age of 59 and 51% were men.

Comparison of the KDIGO 2021 versus 2012 BP targets showed that 50% of patients had BP above both targets; 16% had BP above the KDIGO 2021 target only; 4% had BP above the KDIGO 2012 target only; and 30% had BP control within both targets.

Comparison of the KDIGO 2021 versus 2017 ACC/AHA BP targets showed that 55% of patients had BP above both targets; 11% had BP above the KDIGO 2021 target only; 5% had BP above the 2017 ACC/AHA target only; and 29% had BP control within both targets.

For the second objective, using the NHIS database, researchers identified 412,167 adults with CKD who had routine health examinations during 2009 and 2010. The patients were a median age of 65 and 44% were men.

During a median follow-up of 10 years, the patients had 37,912 incident CVD events, defined as the first hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure, or death from CVD.

The adjusted risk of a composite CVD event was higher in patients with BP above the 2021 KDIGO target only (HR, 1.28) or above both the 2012 and 2021 KDIGO targets (HR, 1.52), compared to patients who had BP within both targets.

The adjusted risk of a composite CVD event was also higher in patients with BP above the 2021 KDIGO target only (HR, 1.18) or above both the 2021 KDIGO target and the 2017 ACC/AHA target (HR, 1.41), compared with patients who had BP within both targets.
 

Editorialist highlights three study aspects

Dr. Fuster noted three main points made by Dr. Logan.

First, the KDIGO 2021 guideline is based on office blood pressure, measured according to the procedure used in the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. However, the SPRINT ambulatory BP ancillary study found that daytime ambulatory systolic BP was 6.8 mm Hg higher in the < 120 mm Hg group than clinic systolic BP that was measured with an automated BP device, mostly without study personnel.

Second, Dr. Logan noted that “not surprisingly, the investigators showed that the weighted proportion of adults with CKD eligible for BP lowering was highest (66.1%) according to 2021 KDIGO guideline,” compared with the two earlier guidelines.

The findings by Dr. Lee and colleagues align with those of a study that used data from the 2015-2018 U.S. NHANES to estimate the proportion of U.S. adults with CKD eligible for BP lowering according to the 2021 KDIGO guidelines, Dr. Logan added. The study found that 69% of U.S. adults (roughly 24.5 million) should correct their BP.

Third, the study in Korea showed a small percentage of patients (3%-5% of the total) had elevated diastolic BP but controlled systolic BP (< 120 mm Hg) with no increased risk of CVD compared to a reference group of patients with well-controlled BP.

“There is a paucity of evidence examining the relationship between diastolic hypertension and outcomes independently from systolic BP level in CKD patients,” Dr. Logan wrote. Similarly, Dr. Lee and colleagues identified this as an area for further research.

This work was supported by the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors and editorialist have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using the 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline target of systolic blood pressure (BP) < 120 mm Hg, 66% of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) would be eligible for BP lowering, according to a study from Korea.

This represents an added > 10% of patients compared with two earlier guidelines, and these patients have a high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), Hyeok-Hee Lee, MD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.

London_England/Thinkstock

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“New candidates for BP-lowering treatment per the 2021 KDIGO guideline account for a substantial proportion of the total CKD population and bear significantly high CVD risk,” the researchers concluded.

“Undoubtedly, a multipronged approach will be required to address the swelling number of people needing more intense treatment, especially against a background of falling rates of BP control in the general community,” Alexander G. Logan, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Let’s not forget hypertension is the number one killer today,” Valentin Fuster, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who is editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, stressed in a podcast that accompanied the article.

“Only 50% of individuals know of their blood pressure, and from this, less than half are properly treated,” he said.

“Today the details of knowing blood pressure levels appear to dominate over the huge ignorance of not knowing about blood pressure at all. Let’s think more and more about this reality,” he urged.
 

Three guidelines, two study objectives

The researchers compared three guidelines:

• The 2021 KDIGO guidelines, with a target systolic BP of < 120 mm Hg (largely based on the SPRINT trial).
• The 2012 KDIGO guidelines, with a target BP of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria and ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
• The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) BP guideline target of < 130/80 mm Hg.

The study had two objectives:

• To examine the proportions of concordance and discordance between the three guidelines among adults with CKD based on cross-sectional data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES).
• To evaluate the association of each concordance/discordance group with cardiovascular outcomes of patients in the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database.

For the first objective, the researchers identified 1,939 adults with CKD from the 2011-2014 survey cycles of KNHANES. Patients were a median age of 59 and 51% were men.

Comparison of the KDIGO 2021 versus 2012 BP targets showed that 50% of patients had BP above both targets; 16% had BP above the KDIGO 2021 target only; 4% had BP above the KDIGO 2012 target only; and 30% had BP control within both targets.

Comparison of the KDIGO 2021 versus 2017 ACC/AHA BP targets showed that 55% of patients had BP above both targets; 11% had BP above the KDIGO 2021 target only; 5% had BP above the 2017 ACC/AHA target only; and 29% had BP control within both targets.

For the second objective, using the NHIS database, researchers identified 412,167 adults with CKD who had routine health examinations during 2009 and 2010. The patients were a median age of 65 and 44% were men.

During a median follow-up of 10 years, the patients had 37,912 incident CVD events, defined as the first hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure, or death from CVD.

The adjusted risk of a composite CVD event was higher in patients with BP above the 2021 KDIGO target only (HR, 1.28) or above both the 2012 and 2021 KDIGO targets (HR, 1.52), compared to patients who had BP within both targets.

The adjusted risk of a composite CVD event was also higher in patients with BP above the 2021 KDIGO target only (HR, 1.18) or above both the 2021 KDIGO target and the 2017 ACC/AHA target (HR, 1.41), compared with patients who had BP within both targets.
 

Editorialist highlights three study aspects

Dr. Fuster noted three main points made by Dr. Logan.

First, the KDIGO 2021 guideline is based on office blood pressure, measured according to the procedure used in the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. However, the SPRINT ambulatory BP ancillary study found that daytime ambulatory systolic BP was 6.8 mm Hg higher in the < 120 mm Hg group than clinic systolic BP that was measured with an automated BP device, mostly without study personnel.

Second, Dr. Logan noted that “not surprisingly, the investigators showed that the weighted proportion of adults with CKD eligible for BP lowering was highest (66.1%) according to 2021 KDIGO guideline,” compared with the two earlier guidelines.

The findings by Dr. Lee and colleagues align with those of a study that used data from the 2015-2018 U.S. NHANES to estimate the proportion of U.S. adults with CKD eligible for BP lowering according to the 2021 KDIGO guidelines, Dr. Logan added. The study found that 69% of U.S. adults (roughly 24.5 million) should correct their BP.

Third, the study in Korea showed a small percentage of patients (3%-5% of the total) had elevated diastolic BP but controlled systolic BP (< 120 mm Hg) with no increased risk of CVD compared to a reference group of patients with well-controlled BP.

“There is a paucity of evidence examining the relationship between diastolic hypertension and outcomes independently from systolic BP level in CKD patients,” Dr. Logan wrote. Similarly, Dr. Lee and colleagues identified this as an area for further research.

This work was supported by the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors and editorialist have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has published a final recommendation statement on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease.

The statement advises against starting aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals aged 60 years or older.

For people aged 40-59 years, the USPSTF suggests that aspirin could be considered in those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (10-year risk of 10% or greater) but that the decision should be individualized.

It notes that in the 40-59 age group, evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use is small, and that persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding are more likely to benefit.

It adds that these recommendations apply only to people who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease and are not already taking daily aspirin.

The USPSTF statement was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is accompanied by an evidence review, a modeling study, a patient page, and an editorial.

A draft version of the recommendation statement, evidence review, and modeling report were previously available for public comment. The final recommendation statement is consistent with the draft version.

The task force concludes that there is adequate evidence that low-dose aspirin has a small benefit to reduce risk for cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke) in adults 40 years or older who have no history of cardiovascular disease but are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Evidence shows that the absolute magnitude of benefit increases with increasing 10-year cardiovascular risk and that the magnitude of the lifetime benefits is greater when aspirin is initiated at a younger age.

But it adds that there is also adequate evidence that aspirin use in adults increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. The USPSTF determined that the magnitude of the harms is small overall but increases in older age groups, particularly in adults older than 60 years.

For patients who are eligible and choose to start taking aspirin, the benefits become smaller with advancing age, and data suggest that clinicians and patients should consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years, the statement advises.

It also says that evidence is unclear whether aspirin use reduces the risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality.

USPSTF vice chair Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization that these recommendations apply only to patients not taking aspirin already and who have no evidence of existing cardiovascular disease.

“In adults aged 60 or over we do not recommend starting aspirin for primary prevention. That is because in this age group the risk of bleeding outweighs the cardiovascular benefit,” he said.

“For adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, there appears to be a net benefit from taking aspirin, but this net benefit is relatively small and will vary with other factors such as magnitude of cardiovascular and bleeding risk. People should talk to their physician about these factors and whether to take aspirin or not,” he added.      

Dr. Barry noted that these recommendations do not apply to people who are already taking aspirin for primary prevention. “These people need to talk to their physicians about whether they should continue. They need to review the reasons why they started aspirin in the first place, and they need to have their bleeding risk evaluated. Someone who has taken aspirin long term without any bleeding complications has a lower risk of future bleeding complications,” he said.

The task force recommends an aspirin dose of 81 mg daily for those people deciding to take aspirin for primary prevention.    

“There is an abundance of evidence that less than 100 mg a day is enough. The lower the dose the lower the bleeding risk. So, the most convenient dose is the widely available 81-mg baby aspirin tablet,” Dr. Barry noted. “While enteric coated products are meant to reduce gastric irritation, the data do not show any difference in bleeding risk between various aspirin formulations,” he added.

Dr. Barry pointed out that aspirin is just one tool for reducing cardiovascular risk.

“People can reduce their risk significantly in many other ways including taking regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, and taking statins if they are at increased cardiovascular risk.”

He noted that recent trials have suggested that aspirin has only a marginal value over and above all these other factors. And the risk reduction with aspirin is smaller than with some other interventions.

“For example, aspirin is associated with a 12% reduction in MI whereas statins are associated with a 25%-30% reduction. Statins are a more powerful tool in reducing cardiovascular risk than aspirin, so perhaps people should consider taking statins first. The benefit of aspirin may be smaller in individuals already taking a statin, and clinicians need to think about the big picture,” Dr. Barry said.

He explained that physicians need to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding risk in each individual patient. “While there are widely available tools to estimate cardiovascular risk, there are no easy tools yet available to evaluate bleeding risk, so physicians need to consider clinical factors such as history of peptic ulcers.”

He suggests for the many people who have an average bleeding risk, then personal preference may come into play. “In the 40-59 age group, the benefits and harms of aspirin are pretty well-balanced. For the average person we think there may be a small net benefit, but this is small enough for personal preference to be considered as well.”
 

Pendulum swinging away from aspirin use

In an editorial accompanying publication of the task force statement in JAMA, Allan S. Brett, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explains that the USPSTF recommendations on aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have changed numerous times over the past 30 years, with the last update in 2016 narrowing the eligible population.

In the new recommendation statement, “the pendulum has swung further away from aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention: The guideline does not recommend routine preventive aspirin for anyone,” Dr. Brett notes.

He points out that an important development between the 2016 and current version was the publication in 2018 of three large placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of primary prevention with aspirin – ARRIVE, ASPREE and ASCEND – which taken together “cast doubt about net benefit for aspirin prophylaxis in current practice.”

Asked how physicians should go about “individualizing” the decision on the use of aspirin in the 40-59 age group at increased cardiovascular risk, Dr. Brett suggests that some patents will have a general philosophy of medical care of “don’t prescribe medication for me unless there is strong evidence to support it,” while others may favor preventive interventions even in borderline cases.

But he notes that many patients have no strong general preferences and often ask a trusted clinician to decide for them. “For such patients, the best approach is for clinicians to be knowledgeable about the data on primary prevention with aspirin. Close reading of the new USPSTF guideline and its companion evidence review, and becoming familiar with the three more recent aspirin trials, is a good way to prepare for these clinical encounters,” he concludes.
 

A cardiologist’s view

Commenting on the task force statement for this news organization, Andrew Freeman, MD, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health, Denver, noted that cardiology societies are already making similar recommendations on aspirin use in primary prevention. “The American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines have been giving similar advice for a couple of years now. It takes a few years for professional societies to catch up with each other,” he said.

“Over the last few years, it has become obvious that the benefit of aspirin is not really very positive until a patient has had a cardiovascular event. In primary prevention, it doesn’t become beneficial unless they are at quite a high risk of having an event,” Dr. Freeman noted.

“In general, most cardiologists are now telling people that, despite what they may have been told in the past, they don’t need to be on aspirin unless they have had a cardiovascular event,” he added. “Our understanding has changed over the years and the weight of evidence has now become clear that the risk of bleeding is not insignificant.”

Dr. Freeman agreed with the shared decision-making advocated for patients in the 40-59 age group. “If a patient is particularly worried about a family history of heart disease, taking aspirin may make some sense, but for most people who have not had a cardiovascular event, the net benefit is very low and gets lower with age as the bleeding risk increases,” he said.  

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

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

One year after hospitalization for COVID-19 only a minority of people feel fully recovered, with being female, obesity, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital risk factors for not feeling fully recovered.

In the new U.K. study of more than 2,000 patients, presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022), and published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, research showed that one in four patients feel fully well again 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19.

For their study, researchers from the University of Leicester used data from the post-hospitalization COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) prospective, longitudinal cohort study, which assessed adults aged 18 years and over who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 across the United Kingdom and subsequently discharged. The researchers assessed the recovery of 2,320 participants discharged from 39 U.K. hospitals between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, who were assessed via patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and at 1 year after hospital discharge. Blood samples were taken at the 5-month visit to be analyzed for the presence of various inflammatory proteins.

All participants were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 participants (33%) completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits at the time of the analysis. The study is ongoing. The 807 patients were mean age of 59 years, 36% were women, and 28% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was similar between 5 months (26%) and 1 year (29%).
 

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

Being female, obese, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital makes someone 32%, 50%, and 58%, respectively, less likely to feel fully recovered 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalization, the authors said.

“We found female sex and obesity were major risk factors for not recovering at one year,” said the researchers, led by Rachael Evans, PhD, Louise V. Wain, and Christopher E. Brightling, PhD, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester.

The authors said fatigue, muscle pain, physically slowing down, poor sleep, and breathlessness were most common ongoing long COVID symptoms. They noted how the total number and range of ongoing symptoms at 1 year was “striking,” positively associated with the severity of long COVID, and emphasizes the “multisystem nature of long COVID.”
 

Several inflammatory mediators increased

An earlier publication from this study identified four groups or “clusters” of symptom severity at 5 months, which were confirmed by this new study at 1 year, the authors said. They reported that 20% had very severe physical and mental health impairment, 30% had severe physical and mental health impairment, 11% had moderate physical health impairment with cognitive impairment, and 39% had mild mental and physical health impairment.

They added that having obesity, reduced exercise capacity, a greater number of symptoms, and increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with the “more severe clusters.” In both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were higher when compared with the mild cluster.

“The limited recovery from 5 months to 1 year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment, and quality-of-life is striking,” the researchers noted.

“In our clusters, female sex and obesity were also associated with more severe ongoing health impairments including reduced exercise performance and health-related quality of life at one year,” and suggested that this potentially highlighted a group that “might need higher intensity interventions such as supervised rehabilitation,” they added.

There are no specific therapeutics for long COVID, the researchers said, noting that “effective interventions are urgently required.” The persistent systemic inflammation identified, particularly in those in the very severe and moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, suggested that these groups “might respond to anti-inflammatory strategies,” the authors wrote.

“We found that a minority of participants felt fully recovered 1 year after hospital discharge, with minimal improvement after a 5-month assessment,” they noted.

They added that the findings suggest the need for complex interventions that target both physical and mental health impairments to alleviate symptoms, and that specific therapeutic approaches to manage posttraumatic stress disorder might also be needed. The authors pointed out how “pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed,” with a “precision-medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.”

They said their study highlighted the “urgent need for health-care services to support the large and rapidly increasing patient population in whom a substantial burden of symptoms exist, including reduced exercise capacity and substantially decreased health-related quality of life one year after hospital discharge.”

They warned that without effective treatments, long COVID could become a “highly prevalent new long-term condition.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

One year after hospitalization for COVID-19 only a minority of people feel fully recovered, with being female, obesity, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital risk factors for not feeling fully recovered.

In the new U.K. study of more than 2,000 patients, presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022), and published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, research showed that one in four patients feel fully well again 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19.

For their study, researchers from the University of Leicester used data from the post-hospitalization COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) prospective, longitudinal cohort study, which assessed adults aged 18 years and over who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 across the United Kingdom and subsequently discharged. The researchers assessed the recovery of 2,320 participants discharged from 39 U.K. hospitals between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, who were assessed via patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and at 1 year after hospital discharge. Blood samples were taken at the 5-month visit to be analyzed for the presence of various inflammatory proteins.

All participants were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 participants (33%) completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits at the time of the analysis. The study is ongoing. The 807 patients were mean age of 59 years, 36% were women, and 28% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was similar between 5 months (26%) and 1 year (29%).
 

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

Being female, obese, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital makes someone 32%, 50%, and 58%, respectively, less likely to feel fully recovered 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalization, the authors said.

“We found female sex and obesity were major risk factors for not recovering at one year,” said the researchers, led by Rachael Evans, PhD, Louise V. Wain, and Christopher E. Brightling, PhD, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester.

The authors said fatigue, muscle pain, physically slowing down, poor sleep, and breathlessness were most common ongoing long COVID symptoms. They noted how the total number and range of ongoing symptoms at 1 year was “striking,” positively associated with the severity of long COVID, and emphasizes the “multisystem nature of long COVID.”
 

Several inflammatory mediators increased

An earlier publication from this study identified four groups or “clusters” of symptom severity at 5 months, which were confirmed by this new study at 1 year, the authors said. They reported that 20% had very severe physical and mental health impairment, 30% had severe physical and mental health impairment, 11% had moderate physical health impairment with cognitive impairment, and 39% had mild mental and physical health impairment.

They added that having obesity, reduced exercise capacity, a greater number of symptoms, and increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with the “more severe clusters.” In both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were higher when compared with the mild cluster.

“The limited recovery from 5 months to 1 year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment, and quality-of-life is striking,” the researchers noted.

“In our clusters, female sex and obesity were also associated with more severe ongoing health impairments including reduced exercise performance and health-related quality of life at one year,” and suggested that this potentially highlighted a group that “might need higher intensity interventions such as supervised rehabilitation,” they added.

There are no specific therapeutics for long COVID, the researchers said, noting that “effective interventions are urgently required.” The persistent systemic inflammation identified, particularly in those in the very severe and moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, suggested that these groups “might respond to anti-inflammatory strategies,” the authors wrote.

“We found that a minority of participants felt fully recovered 1 year after hospital discharge, with minimal improvement after a 5-month assessment,” they noted.

They added that the findings suggest the need for complex interventions that target both physical and mental health impairments to alleviate symptoms, and that specific therapeutic approaches to manage posttraumatic stress disorder might also be needed. The authors pointed out how “pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed,” with a “precision-medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.”

They said their study highlighted the “urgent need for health-care services to support the large and rapidly increasing patient population in whom a substantial burden of symptoms exist, including reduced exercise capacity and substantially decreased health-related quality of life one year after hospital discharge.”

They warned that without effective treatments, long COVID could become a “highly prevalent new long-term condition.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

One year after hospitalization for COVID-19 only a minority of people feel fully recovered, with being female, obesity, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital risk factors for not feeling fully recovered.

In the new U.K. study of more than 2,000 patients, presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022), and published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, research showed that one in four patients feel fully well again 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19.

For their study, researchers from the University of Leicester used data from the post-hospitalization COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) prospective, longitudinal cohort study, which assessed adults aged 18 years and over who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 across the United Kingdom and subsequently discharged. The researchers assessed the recovery of 2,320 participants discharged from 39 U.K. hospitals between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, who were assessed via patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and at 1 year after hospital discharge. Blood samples were taken at the 5-month visit to be analyzed for the presence of various inflammatory proteins.

All participants were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 participants (33%) completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits at the time of the analysis. The study is ongoing. The 807 patients were mean age of 59 years, 36% were women, and 28% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was similar between 5 months (26%) and 1 year (29%).
 

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

Being female, obese, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital makes someone 32%, 50%, and 58%, respectively, less likely to feel fully recovered 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalization, the authors said.

“We found female sex and obesity were major risk factors for not recovering at one year,” said the researchers, led by Rachael Evans, PhD, Louise V. Wain, and Christopher E. Brightling, PhD, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester.

The authors said fatigue, muscle pain, physically slowing down, poor sleep, and breathlessness were most common ongoing long COVID symptoms. They noted how the total number and range of ongoing symptoms at 1 year was “striking,” positively associated with the severity of long COVID, and emphasizes the “multisystem nature of long COVID.”
 

Several inflammatory mediators increased

An earlier publication from this study identified four groups or “clusters” of symptom severity at 5 months, which were confirmed by this new study at 1 year, the authors said. They reported that 20% had very severe physical and mental health impairment, 30% had severe physical and mental health impairment, 11% had moderate physical health impairment with cognitive impairment, and 39% had mild mental and physical health impairment.

They added that having obesity, reduced exercise capacity, a greater number of symptoms, and increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with the “more severe clusters.” In both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were higher when compared with the mild cluster.

“The limited recovery from 5 months to 1 year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment, and quality-of-life is striking,” the researchers noted.

“In our clusters, female sex and obesity were also associated with more severe ongoing health impairments including reduced exercise performance and health-related quality of life at one year,” and suggested that this potentially highlighted a group that “might need higher intensity interventions such as supervised rehabilitation,” they added.

There are no specific therapeutics for long COVID, the researchers said, noting that “effective interventions are urgently required.” The persistent systemic inflammation identified, particularly in those in the very severe and moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, suggested that these groups “might respond to anti-inflammatory strategies,” the authors wrote.

“We found that a minority of participants felt fully recovered 1 year after hospital discharge, with minimal improvement after a 5-month assessment,” they noted.

They added that the findings suggest the need for complex interventions that target both physical and mental health impairments to alleviate symptoms, and that specific therapeutic approaches to manage posttraumatic stress disorder might also be needed. The authors pointed out how “pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed,” with a “precision-medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.”

They said their study highlighted the “urgent need for health-care services to support the large and rapidly increasing patient population in whom a substantial burden of symptoms exist, including reduced exercise capacity and substantially decreased health-related quality of life one year after hospital discharge.”

They warned that without effective treatments, long COVID could become a “highly prevalent new long-term condition.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Political elections can be hard on the heart, suggests a study that showed a substantial uptick in hospital admissions for acute cardiovascular conditions immediately after the 2020 American presidential election.

The analysis of nearly 6.4 million adults showed that the rate of hospitalization for acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 17% higher in the 5 days after the election than in a 5-day period 2 weeks earlier.

The rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 42% higher, with no significant difference for heart failure or stroke hospital admissions.

“These findings suggest that awareness of the heightened risk of CVD and strategies to mitigate risk during notable political events are needed,” write Matthew T. Mefford, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, and colleagues.

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

Stress and the heart

In the American Psychological Association Stress in America 2020 survey conducted roughly 3 months before the 2020 presidential election, 77% of adults cited the future of the country as a substantial source of stress, enhanced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the authors note. More than two-thirds said the election was a substantial source of stress.

Dr. Mefford and colleagues compared CVD hospitalizations at Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California hospitals in the 5-day risk window of Nov. 4-8, 2020, with the control window of Oct. 21-25, 2020.

There were 666 CVD hospitalizations (760.47 per 100,000 person-years [PY]) in the risk window, compared with 569 (647.97 per 100,000 PY) in the control window (rate ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.31).

There were also significantly more hospitalizations for AMI immediately after the election than before (179 vs. 126 AMI hospitalizations; 204.4 vs. 143.5 per 100,000 PY; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.79).

There was no significant difference between the risk and control periods for hospitalizations because of stroke or heart failure.

The study also suggests higher rates of acute CVD after the election in older adults, men, and White individuals. Political affiliation was not examined in the study.

“Importantly, results were consistent before and after excluding patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection,” the study team notes.

Yet, the potential influence of COVID-19 stressors on increasing CVD risk cannot be ruled out, they say.

However, COVID-19 stressors occurred over a much longer period and are less likely to explain the transient risks observed in the defined risk and control windows that are in close proximity to the 2020 election, the investigators point out.

There is growing evidence that psychological health contributes to CVD.

Previous studies shown a higher risk for acute CVD around population-wide psychosocial or environmental stressors, but less was known about acute CVD risk in relation to political events.

The researchers note future studies evaluating stress-relieving interventions may be important for understanding the intersection of political events, associated stress, and acute CVD risk.

Partial funding for the study was provided by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Political elections can be hard on the heart, suggests a study that showed a substantial uptick in hospital admissions for acute cardiovascular conditions immediately after the 2020 American presidential election.

The analysis of nearly 6.4 million adults showed that the rate of hospitalization for acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 17% higher in the 5 days after the election than in a 5-day period 2 weeks earlier.

The rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 42% higher, with no significant difference for heart failure or stroke hospital admissions.

“These findings suggest that awareness of the heightened risk of CVD and strategies to mitigate risk during notable political events are needed,” write Matthew T. Mefford, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, and colleagues.

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

Stress and the heart

In the American Psychological Association Stress in America 2020 survey conducted roughly 3 months before the 2020 presidential election, 77% of adults cited the future of the country as a substantial source of stress, enhanced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the authors note. More than two-thirds said the election was a substantial source of stress.

Dr. Mefford and colleagues compared CVD hospitalizations at Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California hospitals in the 5-day risk window of Nov. 4-8, 2020, with the control window of Oct. 21-25, 2020.

There were 666 CVD hospitalizations (760.47 per 100,000 person-years [PY]) in the risk window, compared with 569 (647.97 per 100,000 PY) in the control window (rate ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.31).

There were also significantly more hospitalizations for AMI immediately after the election than before (179 vs. 126 AMI hospitalizations; 204.4 vs. 143.5 per 100,000 PY; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.79).

There was no significant difference between the risk and control periods for hospitalizations because of stroke or heart failure.

The study also suggests higher rates of acute CVD after the election in older adults, men, and White individuals. Political affiliation was not examined in the study.

“Importantly, results were consistent before and after excluding patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection,” the study team notes.

Yet, the potential influence of COVID-19 stressors on increasing CVD risk cannot be ruled out, they say.

However, COVID-19 stressors occurred over a much longer period and are less likely to explain the transient risks observed in the defined risk and control windows that are in close proximity to the 2020 election, the investigators point out.

There is growing evidence that psychological health contributes to CVD.

Previous studies shown a higher risk for acute CVD around population-wide psychosocial or environmental stressors, but less was known about acute CVD risk in relation to political events.

The researchers note future studies evaluating stress-relieving interventions may be important for understanding the intersection of political events, associated stress, and acute CVD risk.

Partial funding for the study was provided by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Political elections can be hard on the heart, suggests a study that showed a substantial uptick in hospital admissions for acute cardiovascular conditions immediately after the 2020 American presidential election.

The analysis of nearly 6.4 million adults showed that the rate of hospitalization for acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 17% higher in the 5 days after the election than in a 5-day period 2 weeks earlier.

The rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 42% higher, with no significant difference for heart failure or stroke hospital admissions.

“These findings suggest that awareness of the heightened risk of CVD and strategies to mitigate risk during notable political events are needed,” write Matthew T. Mefford, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, and colleagues.

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

Stress and the heart

In the American Psychological Association Stress in America 2020 survey conducted roughly 3 months before the 2020 presidential election, 77% of adults cited the future of the country as a substantial source of stress, enhanced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the authors note. More than two-thirds said the election was a substantial source of stress.

Dr. Mefford and colleagues compared CVD hospitalizations at Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California hospitals in the 5-day risk window of Nov. 4-8, 2020, with the control window of Oct. 21-25, 2020.

There were 666 CVD hospitalizations (760.47 per 100,000 person-years [PY]) in the risk window, compared with 569 (647.97 per 100,000 PY) in the control window (rate ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.31).

There were also significantly more hospitalizations for AMI immediately after the election than before (179 vs. 126 AMI hospitalizations; 204.4 vs. 143.5 per 100,000 PY; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.79).

There was no significant difference between the risk and control periods for hospitalizations because of stroke or heart failure.

The study also suggests higher rates of acute CVD after the election in older adults, men, and White individuals. Political affiliation was not examined in the study.

“Importantly, results were consistent before and after excluding patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection,” the study team notes.

Yet, the potential influence of COVID-19 stressors on increasing CVD risk cannot be ruled out, they say.

However, COVID-19 stressors occurred over a much longer period and are less likely to explain the transient risks observed in the defined risk and control windows that are in close proximity to the 2020 election, the investigators point out.

There is growing evidence that psychological health contributes to CVD.

Previous studies shown a higher risk for acute CVD around population-wide psychosocial or environmental stressors, but less was known about acute CVD risk in relation to political events.

The researchers note future studies evaluating stress-relieving interventions may be important for understanding the intersection of political events, associated stress, and acute CVD risk.

Partial funding for the study was provided by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In the placebo-controlled REDUCE-IT trial, icosapent ethyl (IPE) was linked to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when administered on top of LDL cholesterol control, but a new substudy suggests a greater relative advantage in those with a prior myocardial infarction.

In the study as a whole, IPE (Vascepa, Amarin) was tied to a 20% reduction in CV death (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .03), but it climbed to a 30% reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01) in the subgroup with a prior MI, reported a multinational team of investigators led by Prakriti Gaba, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

On the basis of these data, “the imperative to treat patients who have a history of prior MI is even stronger,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The principal investigator of REDUCE-IT and a coauthor of this subanalysis, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview, “The significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest, really should make physicians strongly consider this therapy in eligible patients.”

The main results of the REDUCE-IT trial were published more than 3 years ago. It enrolled patients with established CV disease or diabetes with additional risk factors who were on a statin and had elevated triglyceride (TG) levels.

A 25% reduction in MACE reported

In those randomized to IPE, there was about a 25% reduction in the primary composite MACE outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina relative to placebo. About the same relative reduction was achieved in the key secondary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke.

Some guidelines have been changed on the basis of these data. The National Lipid Association, for example, conferred a class 1 recommendation for adding IPE to other appropriate lipid-reducing therapies in any individual 45 years of age or older with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

This new substudy (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.035), is likely to be influential for those guidelines not yet revised. In the substudy of the prior MI patients, the relative benefit of IPE for the primary and secondary MACE endpoints were of similar magnitude to the overall study population, but events occurred more frequently in the prior-MI subgroup, greatly increasing the statistical power of the advantage.


 

More MACE in prior MI patients

For example, the primary outcome was observed in 22% of the placebo patients in the overall REDUCE-IT analysis but in 26.1% of those with prior MI, so even though the relative risk reduction remained at about 25%, the statistical strength was a hundred-fold greater (P = .00001 vs. P < .001).

For the key secondary composite MACE endpoint, the relative reduction for those with a prior MI was modestly greater than the study as a whole (HR 0.71 vs. HR. 075) but the statistical strength was again magnified in those with a prior MI (P = .00006 vs. P < .001). In those with a prior MI , the advantage of receiving IPE was similar whether or not there had been a prior revascularization.

The 20% lower rate of all-cause mortality among prior MI patients receiving IPE rather than placebo fell just short of statistical significance (HR, 0.80; P = .054). Ischemic events on IPE were reduced by 35% (P = .0000001) and recurrent MI was reduced by 34% (P = .00009).

In the substudy as well as in the REDUCE-IT trial overall, IPE was well tolerated. A slightly higher rate of atrial fibrillation was reported in both.

The REDUCE-IT substudy evaluated 3,693 patients with a history of MI, representing 45% of the 8,179 patients randomized.

IPE, an ethyl ester of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, initially attracted attention for its ability to reduce elevated TG. It was hoped this would address reduce residual risk in patients on maximally reduced LDL cholesterol. However, it is suspected that IPE exerts benefits additive to or independent of TG lowering, according to the authors of the REDUCE-IT substudy. These include attenuation of the inflammatory response, release of nitric oxide, and effects that support stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque.

The investigators reported that the pattern of response supports this theory. In the newly reported substudy, the primary event curves that included nonthrombotic events separated at about 1 year, but even curves for CV death and sudden cardiac death were more delayed.

This delay might be explained “by the slow but steady reduction in plaque volume, mitigation of inflammation, improvements in endothelial function, and membrane stabilization,” according to the authors, who cited studies suggesting each of these effects might not be wholly dependent on TG reductions alone.
 

Prior TG-lowering studies disappointing

In fact, several studies evaluating other strategies for TG reductions have been disappointing, according to an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Apr 25; doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.001). For example, the STRENGTH trial did not show clinical benefits despite a slightly greater reduction in TGs than that shown in REDUCE-IT (19% reduction vs. 18.3%).

Overall, the REDUCE-IT trial and the prior-MI REDUCE-IT substudy show that there is targetable residual risk in high risk patients on statin therapy. One of the authors of the editorial that accompanied the prior-MI substudy of REDUCE-IT, William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University, emphasized this point. On the basis of REDUCE-IT, he said he believes that IPE should be considered to have broad indications as an adjunctive treatment to other lipid-lowering strategies.

“My practice centers on optimizing secondary prevention in high-risk patients who have elevated TG levels despite well-controlled LDL levels on statins, ezetimibe, or even PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitors,” Dr. Boden said in an interview. Patients with diabetes are notorious for presenting with this profile of dyslipidemia, but he added that “even nondiabetics with prior MI, acute coronary syndrome, or revascularization will benefit from the addition of IPE to high-potency statins.”

Although the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have not yet updated their guidelines to include IPE, Dr. Boden pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and the American Diabetes Society have.

Dr. Bhatt added that there is a clear message from REDUCE-IT that IPE addresses residual risk.

Targeting the subgroup of high-risk patients with elevated TGs “is easy” because they are so readily identifiable, according to Dr. Bhatt, but he said it should be used for any patient that meet the entry criteria used for REDUCE-IT.

“The overall results of REDUCE-IT were robustly positive, so I wouldn’t just use it in patients with prior MI,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Bhatt reports financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Amarin, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Although lipoprotein(a) is causally related to coronary artery disease and aortic valve stenosis – two known risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AFib) – evidence linking Lp(a) to a causal role in the development of AFib has been lukewarm at best.

A recent Mendelian randomization study showed only a nominally significant effect of Lp(a) on AFib, whereas an ARIC substudy showed high levels of Lp(a) to be associated with elevated ischemic stroke risk but not incident AFib.

A new study that adds the heft of Mendelian randomization to large observational and genetic analyses, however, implicates Lp(a) as a potential causal mediator of AFib, independent of its known effects on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“Why this is exciting is because it shows that Lp(a) has effects beyond the arteries and beyond the aortic valve, and that provides two things,” senior author Guillaume Paré, MD, MSc, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, told this news organization.

“First, it provides a potential means to decrease the risk, because there are all these Lp(a) inhibitors in development,” he said. “But I think the other thing is that it just points to a new pathway that leads to atrial fibrillation development that could potentially be targeted with other drugs when it’s better understood. We don’t pretend that we understand the biology there, but it opens this possibility.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Using data from 435,579 participants in the UK Biobank, the researchers identified 20,432 cases of incident AFib over a median of 11 years of follow-up. They also constructed a genetic risk score for Lp(a) using genetic variants within 500 kb of the LPA gene.

After common AFib risk factors were controlled for, results showed a 3% increased risk for incident AFib per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) at enrollment (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

A Mendelian randomization analysis showed a similar association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and AFib (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

To replicate the results, the investigators performed separate Mendelian randomization analyses using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) statistics from the largest GWAS of AFib involving more than 1 million participants and from the FinnGen cohort involving more than 114,000 Finnish residents.

The analyses showed a 3% increase in risk for AFib in the genome-wide study (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and an 8% increase in risk in the Finnish study (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

There was no evidence that the effect of observed or genetically predicted Lp(a) was modified by prevalent ischemic heart disease or aortic stenosis.

Further, MR analyses revealed no risk effect of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides on AFib.

Notably, only 39% of Lp(a) was mediated through ASCVD, suggesting that Lp(a) partly influences AFib independent of its known effect on ASCVD.

“To me, the eureka moment is when we repeated the same analysis for LDL cholesterol and it had absolutely no association with AFib,” Dr. Paré said. “Because up to that point, there was always this lingering doubt that, well, it’s because of coronary artery disease, and that’s logical. But the signal is completely flat with LDL, and we see this strong signal with Lp(a).”

Another ‘red flag’

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, senior author of the ARIC substudy and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the findings are “another red flag that lipoprotein(a) is a marker we need to pay attention to and potentially needs treatment.”

“The fact that it was Mendelian randomization does suggest that there’s a causal role,” she said. “I think the relationship is relatively modest compared to its known risk for stroke, ASCVD, coronary disease, and aortic stenosis, ... which may be why we didn’t see it in the ARIC cohort with 12,000 participants. You needed to have a million participants and 60,000 cases to see an effect here.”

Dr. Michos said she hopes the findings encourage increased testing, particularly with multiple potential treatments currently in the pipeline. She pointed out that the researchers estimated that the experimental antisense agent pelacarsen, which lowers Lp(a) by about 80%, would translate into about an 8% reduction in AFib risk, or “the same effect as 2 kg of weight loss or a 5 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure, which we do think are meaningful.”

Adding to this point in an accompanying editorial, Daniel Seung Kim, MD, PhD, and Abha Khandelwal, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, say that “moreover, reduction of Lp(a) levels would have multifactorial effects on CAD, cerebrovascular/peripheral artery disease, and AS risk.

“Therefore, approaches to reduce Lp(a) should be prioritized to further reduce the morbidity and mortality of a rapidly aging population,” they write.

The editorialists also join the researchers in calling for inclusion of AFib as a secondary outcome in ongoing Lp(a) trials, in addition to cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease.
 

Unanswered questions

As to what’s driving the risk effect of Lp(a), first author Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, PhD, also from the Population Health Research Institute, explained that in aortic stenosis, “mechanical stress increases endothelial permeability, allowing Lp(a) to infiltrate valvular tissue and induce gene expression that results in microcalcifications and cell death.”

“So, in theory, a similar sort of mechanism could be at play in atrial tissue that may lead to damage and the electrical remodeling that causes atrial fibrillation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani also noted that Lp(a) has proinflammatory properties, but added that any potential mechanisms are “speculative and require further research to disentangle.”

Dr. Paré and colleagues say follow-up studies are also warranted, noting that generalizability of the results may be limited because AFib cases were found using electronic health records in the population-scale cohorts and because few UK Biobank participants were of non-European ancestry and Lp(a) levels vary among ethnic groups.

Another limitation is that the number of kringle IV type 2 domain repeats within the LPA gene, the largest contributor to genetic variation in Lp(a), could not be directly measured. Still, 71.4% of the variation in Lp(a) was explained using the genetic risk score alone, they say.

Dr. Paré holds the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and Cisco Systems Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Michos reports consulting for Novartis and serving on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kim reports grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Dr. Khandelwal serves on the advisory board of Amgen and has received funding from Novartis CTQJ and Akcea.

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

Although lipoprotein(a) is causally related to coronary artery disease and aortic valve stenosis – two known risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AFib) – evidence linking Lp(a) to a causal role in the development of AFib has been lukewarm at best.

A recent Mendelian randomization study showed only a nominally significant effect of Lp(a) on AFib, whereas an ARIC substudy showed high levels of Lp(a) to be associated with elevated ischemic stroke risk but not incident AFib.

A new study that adds the heft of Mendelian randomization to large observational and genetic analyses, however, implicates Lp(a) as a potential causal mediator of AFib, independent of its known effects on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“Why this is exciting is because it shows that Lp(a) has effects beyond the arteries and beyond the aortic valve, and that provides two things,” senior author Guillaume Paré, MD, MSc, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, told this news organization.

“First, it provides a potential means to decrease the risk, because there are all these Lp(a) inhibitors in development,” he said. “But I think the other thing is that it just points to a new pathway that leads to atrial fibrillation development that could potentially be targeted with other drugs when it’s better understood. We don’t pretend that we understand the biology there, but it opens this possibility.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Using data from 435,579 participants in the UK Biobank, the researchers identified 20,432 cases of incident AFib over a median of 11 years of follow-up. They also constructed a genetic risk score for Lp(a) using genetic variants within 500 kb of the LPA gene.

After common AFib risk factors were controlled for, results showed a 3% increased risk for incident AFib per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) at enrollment (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

A Mendelian randomization analysis showed a similar association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and AFib (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

To replicate the results, the investigators performed separate Mendelian randomization analyses using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) statistics from the largest GWAS of AFib involving more than 1 million participants and from the FinnGen cohort involving more than 114,000 Finnish residents.

The analyses showed a 3% increase in risk for AFib in the genome-wide study (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and an 8% increase in risk in the Finnish study (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

There was no evidence that the effect of observed or genetically predicted Lp(a) was modified by prevalent ischemic heart disease or aortic stenosis.

Further, MR analyses revealed no risk effect of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides on AFib.

Notably, only 39% of Lp(a) was mediated through ASCVD, suggesting that Lp(a) partly influences AFib independent of its known effect on ASCVD.

“To me, the eureka moment is when we repeated the same analysis for LDL cholesterol and it had absolutely no association with AFib,” Dr. Paré said. “Because up to that point, there was always this lingering doubt that, well, it’s because of coronary artery disease, and that’s logical. But the signal is completely flat with LDL, and we see this strong signal with Lp(a).”

Another ‘red flag’

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, senior author of the ARIC substudy and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the findings are “another red flag that lipoprotein(a) is a marker we need to pay attention to and potentially needs treatment.”

“The fact that it was Mendelian randomization does suggest that there’s a causal role,” she said. “I think the relationship is relatively modest compared to its known risk for stroke, ASCVD, coronary disease, and aortic stenosis, ... which may be why we didn’t see it in the ARIC cohort with 12,000 participants. You needed to have a million participants and 60,000 cases to see an effect here.”

Dr. Michos said she hopes the findings encourage increased testing, particularly with multiple potential treatments currently in the pipeline. She pointed out that the researchers estimated that the experimental antisense agent pelacarsen, which lowers Lp(a) by about 80%, would translate into about an 8% reduction in AFib risk, or “the same effect as 2 kg of weight loss or a 5 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure, which we do think are meaningful.”

Adding to this point in an accompanying editorial, Daniel Seung Kim, MD, PhD, and Abha Khandelwal, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, say that “moreover, reduction of Lp(a) levels would have multifactorial effects on CAD, cerebrovascular/peripheral artery disease, and AS risk.

“Therefore, approaches to reduce Lp(a) should be prioritized to further reduce the morbidity and mortality of a rapidly aging population,” they write.

The editorialists also join the researchers in calling for inclusion of AFib as a secondary outcome in ongoing Lp(a) trials, in addition to cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease.
 

Unanswered questions

As to what’s driving the risk effect of Lp(a), first author Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, PhD, also from the Population Health Research Institute, explained that in aortic stenosis, “mechanical stress increases endothelial permeability, allowing Lp(a) to infiltrate valvular tissue and induce gene expression that results in microcalcifications and cell death.”

“So, in theory, a similar sort of mechanism could be at play in atrial tissue that may lead to damage and the electrical remodeling that causes atrial fibrillation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani also noted that Lp(a) has proinflammatory properties, but added that any potential mechanisms are “speculative and require further research to disentangle.”

Dr. Paré and colleagues say follow-up studies are also warranted, noting that generalizability of the results may be limited because AFib cases were found using electronic health records in the population-scale cohorts and because few UK Biobank participants were of non-European ancestry and Lp(a) levels vary among ethnic groups.

Another limitation is that the number of kringle IV type 2 domain repeats within the LPA gene, the largest contributor to genetic variation in Lp(a), could not be directly measured. Still, 71.4% of the variation in Lp(a) was explained using the genetic risk score alone, they say.

Dr. Paré holds the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and Cisco Systems Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Michos reports consulting for Novartis and serving on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kim reports grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Dr. Khandelwal serves on the advisory board of Amgen and has received funding from Novartis CTQJ and Akcea.

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

Although lipoprotein(a) is causally related to coronary artery disease and aortic valve stenosis – two known risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AFib) – evidence linking Lp(a) to a causal role in the development of AFib has been lukewarm at best.

A recent Mendelian randomization study showed only a nominally significant effect of Lp(a) on AFib, whereas an ARIC substudy showed high levels of Lp(a) to be associated with elevated ischemic stroke risk but not incident AFib.

A new study that adds the heft of Mendelian randomization to large observational and genetic analyses, however, implicates Lp(a) as a potential causal mediator of AFib, independent of its known effects on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“Why this is exciting is because it shows that Lp(a) has effects beyond the arteries and beyond the aortic valve, and that provides two things,” senior author Guillaume Paré, MD, MSc, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, told this news organization.

“First, it provides a potential means to decrease the risk, because there are all these Lp(a) inhibitors in development,” he said. “But I think the other thing is that it just points to a new pathway that leads to atrial fibrillation development that could potentially be targeted with other drugs when it’s better understood. We don’t pretend that we understand the biology there, but it opens this possibility.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Using data from 435,579 participants in the UK Biobank, the researchers identified 20,432 cases of incident AFib over a median of 11 years of follow-up. They also constructed a genetic risk score for Lp(a) using genetic variants within 500 kb of the LPA gene.

After common AFib risk factors were controlled for, results showed a 3% increased risk for incident AFib per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) at enrollment (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

A Mendelian randomization analysis showed a similar association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and AFib (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).

To replicate the results, the investigators performed separate Mendelian randomization analyses using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) statistics from the largest GWAS of AFib involving more than 1 million participants and from the FinnGen cohort involving more than 114,000 Finnish residents.

The analyses showed a 3% increase in risk for AFib in the genome-wide study (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and an 8% increase in risk in the Finnish study (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) per 50 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

There was no evidence that the effect of observed or genetically predicted Lp(a) was modified by prevalent ischemic heart disease or aortic stenosis.

Further, MR analyses revealed no risk effect of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol or triglycerides on AFib.

Notably, only 39% of Lp(a) was mediated through ASCVD, suggesting that Lp(a) partly influences AFib independent of its known effect on ASCVD.

“To me, the eureka moment is when we repeated the same analysis for LDL cholesterol and it had absolutely no association with AFib,” Dr. Paré said. “Because up to that point, there was always this lingering doubt that, well, it’s because of coronary artery disease, and that’s logical. But the signal is completely flat with LDL, and we see this strong signal with Lp(a).”

Another ‘red flag’

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, senior author of the ARIC substudy and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the findings are “another red flag that lipoprotein(a) is a marker we need to pay attention to and potentially needs treatment.”

“The fact that it was Mendelian randomization does suggest that there’s a causal role,” she said. “I think the relationship is relatively modest compared to its known risk for stroke, ASCVD, coronary disease, and aortic stenosis, ... which may be why we didn’t see it in the ARIC cohort with 12,000 participants. You needed to have a million participants and 60,000 cases to see an effect here.”

Dr. Michos said she hopes the findings encourage increased testing, particularly with multiple potential treatments currently in the pipeline. She pointed out that the researchers estimated that the experimental antisense agent pelacarsen, which lowers Lp(a) by about 80%, would translate into about an 8% reduction in AFib risk, or “the same effect as 2 kg of weight loss or a 5 mm Hg reduction in blood pressure, which we do think are meaningful.”

Adding to this point in an accompanying editorial, Daniel Seung Kim, MD, PhD, and Abha Khandelwal, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, say that “moreover, reduction of Lp(a) levels would have multifactorial effects on CAD, cerebrovascular/peripheral artery disease, and AS risk.

“Therefore, approaches to reduce Lp(a) should be prioritized to further reduce the morbidity and mortality of a rapidly aging population,” they write.

The editorialists also join the researchers in calling for inclusion of AFib as a secondary outcome in ongoing Lp(a) trials, in addition to cerebrovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease.
 

Unanswered questions

As to what’s driving the risk effect of Lp(a), first author Pedrum Mohammadi-Shemirani, PhD, also from the Population Health Research Institute, explained that in aortic stenosis, “mechanical stress increases endothelial permeability, allowing Lp(a) to infiltrate valvular tissue and induce gene expression that results in microcalcifications and cell death.”

“So, in theory, a similar sort of mechanism could be at play in atrial tissue that may lead to damage and the electrical remodeling that causes atrial fibrillation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani also noted that Lp(a) has proinflammatory properties, but added that any potential mechanisms are “speculative and require further research to disentangle.”

Dr. Paré and colleagues say follow-up studies are also warranted, noting that generalizability of the results may be limited because AFib cases were found using electronic health records in the population-scale cohorts and because few UK Biobank participants were of non-European ancestry and Lp(a) levels vary among ethnic groups.

Another limitation is that the number of kringle IV type 2 domain repeats within the LPA gene, the largest contributor to genetic variation in Lp(a), could not be directly measured. Still, 71.4% of the variation in Lp(a) was explained using the genetic risk score alone, they say.

Dr. Paré holds the Canada Research Chair in Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology and Cisco Systems Professorship in Integrated Health Biosystems. Dr. Mohammadi-Shemirani is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr. Michos reports consulting for Novartis and serving on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kim reports grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Dr. Khandelwal serves on the advisory board of Amgen and has received funding from Novartis CTQJ and Akcea.

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

Pregnant women who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet had a lower risk of preeclampsia, according to the results of a new study.

“As an observational study, it obviously has limitations that need to be considered, but these results build on other evidence that Mediterranean diet reduces cardiovascular risk and extends those findings to pregnancy as preeclampsia is a cardiovascular outcome,” senior author Noel T. Mueller, PhD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 20 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The authors noted that preeclampsia, characterized by a range of symptoms including hypertension, proteinuria, and end-organ dysfunction, is a disorder that occurs in up to 5%-10% of all pregnant women worldwide, and is more common in Black women. It is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and raises the risk for long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD), including chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure.

Children born to mothers with preeclampsia are at an elevated risk of having higher blood pressure and other abnormal cardiometabolic parameters.

The authors noted that multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of the Mediterranean diet – characterized primarily by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and unsaturated fats – in reducing cardiovascular risk in the nonpregnant population. The current study was conducted to investigate whether benefits could also be seen in pregnant women in the form of a reduced risk of preeclampsia.

For the study, which used data from the Boston Birth Cohort, maternal sociodemographic and dietary data were obtained from 8,507 women via interview and food frequency questionnaire within 24-72 hours of giving birth. A Mediterranean-style diet score was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. Additional clinical information, including physician diagnoses of preexisting conditions and preeclampsia, were extracted from medical records.

Of the women in the sample, 848 developed preeclampsia, of whom 47% were Black, and 28% were Hispanic.

After multivariable adjustment, the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was associated with lower odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.96).

A subgroup analysis of Black women demonstrated a similar benefit with an adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1 of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96).

“In this racially and ethnically diverse cohort, women who had greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet during pregnancy had a greater than 20% lower odds of developing preeclampsia, after [adjustment] for potential confounders. In addition, the evidence for the protective effect of a Mediterranean-style diet against the odds of developing preeclampsia remained present in a subgroup analysis of Black women,” the researchers concluded.

Asked whether this would be enough evidence to recommend a Mediterranean diet to pregnant women, Dr. Mueller said that the organizations that issue dietary guidelines would probably require replication of these results and also possibly a randomized trial in a diverse population group before advocating such a diet.

“That is something we would like to do but this will take time and money,” he added.

Lead study author Anum Minhas, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that in the meantime she would be recommending a Mediterranean diet to her pregnant patients. 

“The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy way of eating. I can’t see any downside of following such a diet in pregnancy, especially for high-risk women – those with obesity, hypertension or gestational diabetes, and there are likely other potential benefits such as reduced weight gain and reduced gestational diabetes,” she said.  

Dr. Mueller said he appreciated this pragmatic approach. “Sometimes there can be hesitation on making recommendations from observational studies, but the alternative to recommending this diet is either no recommendations on diet or recommending an alternative diet,” he said. “The Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, which is quite similar, have shown by far the most evidence of cardioprotection of any diets. They have been shown to reduce blood pressure and lipids and improve cardiovascular risk, and I think we can now assume that that likely extends to pregnancy. I feel comfortable for this diet to be recommended to pregnant women.”

But he added: “Having said that, there is still a need for a randomized trial in pregnancy. We think it works but until we have a randomized trial we won’t know for sure, and we won’t know how much of a benefit we can get.”

Commenting on the study, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that this type of observational study is important for hypothesis generation but cannot prove cause and effect relationships.

“The evidence is promising enough,” said Dr. Manson, who was not involved with this study. But she added that to move forward, a randomized trial in women at elevated risk of preeclampsia would be needed, beginning in early pregnancy, if not earlier.

“In the meantime,” she noted, “several large-scale cohorts could be leveraged to look at diet assessed before or during pregnancy to see if this dietary pattern is prospectively related to lower risk of preeclampsia.

“With additional supportive data, and in view of the diet’s safety and general cardiovascular benefits, it could become a major tool for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The Boston Birth Cohort study was supported in part by grants from the March of Dimes, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet had a lower risk of preeclampsia, according to the results of a new study.

“As an observational study, it obviously has limitations that need to be considered, but these results build on other evidence that Mediterranean diet reduces cardiovascular risk and extends those findings to pregnancy as preeclampsia is a cardiovascular outcome,” senior author Noel T. Mueller, PhD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 20 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The authors noted that preeclampsia, characterized by a range of symptoms including hypertension, proteinuria, and end-organ dysfunction, is a disorder that occurs in up to 5%-10% of all pregnant women worldwide, and is more common in Black women. It is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and raises the risk for long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD), including chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure.

Children born to mothers with preeclampsia are at an elevated risk of having higher blood pressure and other abnormal cardiometabolic parameters.

The authors noted that multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of the Mediterranean diet – characterized primarily by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and unsaturated fats – in reducing cardiovascular risk in the nonpregnant population. The current study was conducted to investigate whether benefits could also be seen in pregnant women in the form of a reduced risk of preeclampsia.

For the study, which used data from the Boston Birth Cohort, maternal sociodemographic and dietary data were obtained from 8,507 women via interview and food frequency questionnaire within 24-72 hours of giving birth. A Mediterranean-style diet score was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. Additional clinical information, including physician diagnoses of preexisting conditions and preeclampsia, were extracted from medical records.

Of the women in the sample, 848 developed preeclampsia, of whom 47% were Black, and 28% were Hispanic.

After multivariable adjustment, the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was associated with lower odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.96).

A subgroup analysis of Black women demonstrated a similar benefit with an adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1 of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96).

“In this racially and ethnically diverse cohort, women who had greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet during pregnancy had a greater than 20% lower odds of developing preeclampsia, after [adjustment] for potential confounders. In addition, the evidence for the protective effect of a Mediterranean-style diet against the odds of developing preeclampsia remained present in a subgroup analysis of Black women,” the researchers concluded.

Asked whether this would be enough evidence to recommend a Mediterranean diet to pregnant women, Dr. Mueller said that the organizations that issue dietary guidelines would probably require replication of these results and also possibly a randomized trial in a diverse population group before advocating such a diet.

“That is something we would like to do but this will take time and money,” he added.

Lead study author Anum Minhas, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that in the meantime she would be recommending a Mediterranean diet to her pregnant patients. 

“The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy way of eating. I can’t see any downside of following such a diet in pregnancy, especially for high-risk women – those with obesity, hypertension or gestational diabetes, and there are likely other potential benefits such as reduced weight gain and reduced gestational diabetes,” she said.  

Dr. Mueller said he appreciated this pragmatic approach. “Sometimes there can be hesitation on making recommendations from observational studies, but the alternative to recommending this diet is either no recommendations on diet or recommending an alternative diet,” he said. “The Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, which is quite similar, have shown by far the most evidence of cardioprotection of any diets. They have been shown to reduce blood pressure and lipids and improve cardiovascular risk, and I think we can now assume that that likely extends to pregnancy. I feel comfortable for this diet to be recommended to pregnant women.”

But he added: “Having said that, there is still a need for a randomized trial in pregnancy. We think it works but until we have a randomized trial we won’t know for sure, and we won’t know how much of a benefit we can get.”

Commenting on the study, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that this type of observational study is important for hypothesis generation but cannot prove cause and effect relationships.

“The evidence is promising enough,” said Dr. Manson, who was not involved with this study. But she added that to move forward, a randomized trial in women at elevated risk of preeclampsia would be needed, beginning in early pregnancy, if not earlier.

“In the meantime,” she noted, “several large-scale cohorts could be leveraged to look at diet assessed before or during pregnancy to see if this dietary pattern is prospectively related to lower risk of preeclampsia.

“With additional supportive data, and in view of the diet’s safety and general cardiovascular benefits, it could become a major tool for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The Boston Birth Cohort study was supported in part by grants from the March of Dimes, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet had a lower risk of preeclampsia, according to the results of a new study.

“As an observational study, it obviously has limitations that need to be considered, but these results build on other evidence that Mediterranean diet reduces cardiovascular risk and extends those findings to pregnancy as preeclampsia is a cardiovascular outcome,” senior author Noel T. Mueller, PhD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 20 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The authors noted that preeclampsia, characterized by a range of symptoms including hypertension, proteinuria, and end-organ dysfunction, is a disorder that occurs in up to 5%-10% of all pregnant women worldwide, and is more common in Black women. It is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and raises the risk for long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD), including chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure.

Children born to mothers with preeclampsia are at an elevated risk of having higher blood pressure and other abnormal cardiometabolic parameters.

The authors noted that multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of the Mediterranean diet – characterized primarily by high intake of vegetables, fruits, and unsaturated fats – in reducing cardiovascular risk in the nonpregnant population. The current study was conducted to investigate whether benefits could also be seen in pregnant women in the form of a reduced risk of preeclampsia.

For the study, which used data from the Boston Birth Cohort, maternal sociodemographic and dietary data were obtained from 8,507 women via interview and food frequency questionnaire within 24-72 hours of giving birth. A Mediterranean-style diet score was calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. Additional clinical information, including physician diagnoses of preexisting conditions and preeclampsia, were extracted from medical records.

Of the women in the sample, 848 developed preeclampsia, of whom 47% were Black, and 28% were Hispanic.

After multivariable adjustment, the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was associated with lower odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.96).

A subgroup analysis of Black women demonstrated a similar benefit with an adjusted odds ratio comparing tertile 3 to tertile 1 of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96).

“In this racially and ethnically diverse cohort, women who had greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet during pregnancy had a greater than 20% lower odds of developing preeclampsia, after [adjustment] for potential confounders. In addition, the evidence for the protective effect of a Mediterranean-style diet against the odds of developing preeclampsia remained present in a subgroup analysis of Black women,” the researchers concluded.

Asked whether this would be enough evidence to recommend a Mediterranean diet to pregnant women, Dr. Mueller said that the organizations that issue dietary guidelines would probably require replication of these results and also possibly a randomized trial in a diverse population group before advocating such a diet.

“That is something we would like to do but this will take time and money,” he added.

Lead study author Anum Minhas, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that in the meantime she would be recommending a Mediterranean diet to her pregnant patients. 

“The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy way of eating. I can’t see any downside of following such a diet in pregnancy, especially for high-risk women – those with obesity, hypertension or gestational diabetes, and there are likely other potential benefits such as reduced weight gain and reduced gestational diabetes,” she said.  

Dr. Mueller said he appreciated this pragmatic approach. “Sometimes there can be hesitation on making recommendations from observational studies, but the alternative to recommending this diet is either no recommendations on diet or recommending an alternative diet,” he said. “The Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, which is quite similar, have shown by far the most evidence of cardioprotection of any diets. They have been shown to reduce blood pressure and lipids and improve cardiovascular risk, and I think we can now assume that that likely extends to pregnancy. I feel comfortable for this diet to be recommended to pregnant women.”

But he added: “Having said that, there is still a need for a randomized trial in pregnancy. We think it works but until we have a randomized trial we won’t know for sure, and we won’t know how much of a benefit we can get.”

Commenting on the study, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, pointed out that this type of observational study is important for hypothesis generation but cannot prove cause and effect relationships.

“The evidence is promising enough,” said Dr. Manson, who was not involved with this study. But she added that to move forward, a randomized trial in women at elevated risk of preeclampsia would be needed, beginning in early pregnancy, if not earlier.

“In the meantime,” she noted, “several large-scale cohorts could be leveraged to look at diet assessed before or during pregnancy to see if this dietary pattern is prospectively related to lower risk of preeclampsia.

“With additional supportive data, and in view of the diet’s safety and general cardiovascular benefits, it could become a major tool for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The Boston Birth Cohort study was supported in part by grants from the March of Dimes, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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