Cardiology News

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

Before working to create standards for electronic prior authorization, the entire process itself needs some work.

That was the message from groups representing physicians, medical practices, and hospitals in response to a request for input from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In January, ONC requested public feedback on how making the process for insurer approvals digital can “ease the burden of prior authorization tasks on patients, providers, and payers.”

According to a study conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, 71% of providers who implemented electronic prior authorization experienced “faster time to patient care.” The organization, which represents many of the nation’s health insurers, also reported that electronic prior authorization reduced the time it took to receive a decision by a health plan by 69%.

In its response to ONC, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) called out prior authorization as a “leading cause of physician burden” and wrote that the organization is “strongly supportive of efforts to reform and streamline the prior authorization process.”

AAFP, which represents 127,600 family physicians, residents, and students, cited in its comments an AMA survey in which 88% of physicians said that prior authorization “generates high or extremely high administrative burden” for their practices. Practices are responsible for an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician each week, which can take almost 2 days of a physician’s time each week, according to the AAFP.

Delayed care, increased confusion, reduced treatment adherence, and even discontinuation of treatment are some of the harms prior authorization causes patients, wrote AAFP board chair Ada D. Stewart, MD.

Electronic prior authorization is “just one step in addressing the flaws of utilization management practices, and comprehensive reform is needed to reduce the volume of prior authorizations and ensure patients’ timely access to care,” wrote Dr. Stewart.
 

AHA: Most common prior auth means are phones, fax

The American Hospital Association (AHA) highlighted the variety of prior authorization requests from different payers, writing, “While some plans accept electronic means, the most common method remains using fax machines and contacting call centers, with regular hold times of 20 to 30 minutes.”

The AHA’s Senior Vice President Ashley Thompson wrote that the various prior authorization processes required by payers take up staff time and increase the chance of data entry errors.

To fix this, the AHA calls for an “end-to-end automated prior authorization process that integrates with clinicians’ EHR workflow.” According to the AHA, this approach can help physicians have access to the required prior authorization information during treatment planning.

In response to the federal agency’s question about the functional capabilities for certified health IT modules to facilitate electronic prior authorization, the AAFP wrote that the standards should include communicating to providers the expected timeline from a payer on a response, the ability to access payers’ reasoning for denials, and the creation of a process for appealing decisions.

The ONC also asked for input on the use of three fast health care interoperability resources (FHIR)–based Da Vinci implementation guides in electronic prior authorization.

Developed by the Da Vinci Project in coordination with the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Workgroup, the FHIR-based implementation guides create a mechanism for reducing the burden on provider organizations and simplifying processes by establishing electronic versions of administrative and clinical requirements that are a part of providers’ workflow.

In its response, the AHA requested that prior authorization solutions “be fully developed and tested prior to wide scale industry rollout.”

The AAFP largely agreed with the AHA in its response, writing, “Only standards and [implementation guides] that have been proven effective and adoptable in real world testing should be candidates for mandatory certification and utilization, including the Da Vinci standards.”

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which represents more than 60,000 medical practice administrators, executives, and leaders, supports the idea that electronic prior authorization “has the potential to decrease administrative burden through automation but only if implemented properly.”

In its comments, the MGMA called for broader reform of prior authorization. One way to accomplish that goal is by aligning electronic prior authorization standards “with payment and quality reporting programs, as well as care delivery models, to minimize burden and overhead costs.”

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

Before working to create standards for electronic prior authorization, the entire process itself needs some work.

That was the message from groups representing physicians, medical practices, and hospitals in response to a request for input from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In January, ONC requested public feedback on how making the process for insurer approvals digital can “ease the burden of prior authorization tasks on patients, providers, and payers.”

According to a study conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, 71% of providers who implemented electronic prior authorization experienced “faster time to patient care.” The organization, which represents many of the nation’s health insurers, also reported that electronic prior authorization reduced the time it took to receive a decision by a health plan by 69%.

In its response to ONC, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) called out prior authorization as a “leading cause of physician burden” and wrote that the organization is “strongly supportive of efforts to reform and streamline the prior authorization process.”

AAFP, which represents 127,600 family physicians, residents, and students, cited in its comments an AMA survey in which 88% of physicians said that prior authorization “generates high or extremely high administrative burden” for their practices. Practices are responsible for an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician each week, which can take almost 2 days of a physician’s time each week, according to the AAFP.

Delayed care, increased confusion, reduced treatment adherence, and even discontinuation of treatment are some of the harms prior authorization causes patients, wrote AAFP board chair Ada D. Stewart, MD.

Electronic prior authorization is “just one step in addressing the flaws of utilization management practices, and comprehensive reform is needed to reduce the volume of prior authorizations and ensure patients’ timely access to care,” wrote Dr. Stewart.
 

AHA: Most common prior auth means are phones, fax

The American Hospital Association (AHA) highlighted the variety of prior authorization requests from different payers, writing, “While some plans accept electronic means, the most common method remains using fax machines and contacting call centers, with regular hold times of 20 to 30 minutes.”

The AHA’s Senior Vice President Ashley Thompson wrote that the various prior authorization processes required by payers take up staff time and increase the chance of data entry errors.

To fix this, the AHA calls for an “end-to-end automated prior authorization process that integrates with clinicians’ EHR workflow.” According to the AHA, this approach can help physicians have access to the required prior authorization information during treatment planning.

In response to the federal agency’s question about the functional capabilities for certified health IT modules to facilitate electronic prior authorization, the AAFP wrote that the standards should include communicating to providers the expected timeline from a payer on a response, the ability to access payers’ reasoning for denials, and the creation of a process for appealing decisions.

The ONC also asked for input on the use of three fast health care interoperability resources (FHIR)–based Da Vinci implementation guides in electronic prior authorization.

Developed by the Da Vinci Project in coordination with the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Workgroup, the FHIR-based implementation guides create a mechanism for reducing the burden on provider organizations and simplifying processes by establishing electronic versions of administrative and clinical requirements that are a part of providers’ workflow.

In its response, the AHA requested that prior authorization solutions “be fully developed and tested prior to wide scale industry rollout.”

The AAFP largely agreed with the AHA in its response, writing, “Only standards and [implementation guides] that have been proven effective and adoptable in real world testing should be candidates for mandatory certification and utilization, including the Da Vinci standards.”

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which represents more than 60,000 medical practice administrators, executives, and leaders, supports the idea that electronic prior authorization “has the potential to decrease administrative burden through automation but only if implemented properly.”

In its comments, the MGMA called for broader reform of prior authorization. One way to accomplish that goal is by aligning electronic prior authorization standards “with payment and quality reporting programs, as well as care delivery models, to minimize burden and overhead costs.”

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

Before working to create standards for electronic prior authorization, the entire process itself needs some work.

That was the message from groups representing physicians, medical practices, and hospitals in response to a request for input from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In January, ONC requested public feedback on how making the process for insurer approvals digital can “ease the burden of prior authorization tasks on patients, providers, and payers.”

According to a study conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, 71% of providers who implemented electronic prior authorization experienced “faster time to patient care.” The organization, which represents many of the nation’s health insurers, also reported that electronic prior authorization reduced the time it took to receive a decision by a health plan by 69%.

In its response to ONC, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) called out prior authorization as a “leading cause of physician burden” and wrote that the organization is “strongly supportive of efforts to reform and streamline the prior authorization process.”

AAFP, which represents 127,600 family physicians, residents, and students, cited in its comments an AMA survey in which 88% of physicians said that prior authorization “generates high or extremely high administrative burden” for their practices. Practices are responsible for an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician each week, which can take almost 2 days of a physician’s time each week, according to the AAFP.

Delayed care, increased confusion, reduced treatment adherence, and even discontinuation of treatment are some of the harms prior authorization causes patients, wrote AAFP board chair Ada D. Stewart, MD.

Electronic prior authorization is “just one step in addressing the flaws of utilization management practices, and comprehensive reform is needed to reduce the volume of prior authorizations and ensure patients’ timely access to care,” wrote Dr. Stewart.
 

AHA: Most common prior auth means are phones, fax

The American Hospital Association (AHA) highlighted the variety of prior authorization requests from different payers, writing, “While some plans accept electronic means, the most common method remains using fax machines and contacting call centers, with regular hold times of 20 to 30 minutes.”

The AHA’s Senior Vice President Ashley Thompson wrote that the various prior authorization processes required by payers take up staff time and increase the chance of data entry errors.

To fix this, the AHA calls for an “end-to-end automated prior authorization process that integrates with clinicians’ EHR workflow.” According to the AHA, this approach can help physicians have access to the required prior authorization information during treatment planning.

In response to the federal agency’s question about the functional capabilities for certified health IT modules to facilitate electronic prior authorization, the AAFP wrote that the standards should include communicating to providers the expected timeline from a payer on a response, the ability to access payers’ reasoning for denials, and the creation of a process for appealing decisions.

The ONC also asked for input on the use of three fast health care interoperability resources (FHIR)–based Da Vinci implementation guides in electronic prior authorization.

Developed by the Da Vinci Project in coordination with the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Workgroup, the FHIR-based implementation guides create a mechanism for reducing the burden on provider organizations and simplifying processes by establishing electronic versions of administrative and clinical requirements that are a part of providers’ workflow.

In its response, the AHA requested that prior authorization solutions “be fully developed and tested prior to wide scale industry rollout.”

The AAFP largely agreed with the AHA in its response, writing, “Only standards and [implementation guides] that have been proven effective and adoptable in real world testing should be candidates for mandatory certification and utilization, including the Da Vinci standards.”

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which represents more than 60,000 medical practice administrators, executives, and leaders, supports the idea that electronic prior authorization “has the potential to decrease administrative burden through automation but only if implemented properly.”

In its comments, the MGMA called for broader reform of prior authorization. One way to accomplish that goal is by aligning electronic prior authorization standards “with payment and quality reporting programs, as well as care delivery models, to minimize burden and overhead costs.”

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

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

A trio of analyses based on the prospective UK Biobank cohort suggest that regular coffee drinking, especially a daily intake of two to three cups, is not only safe for the heart but may be cardioprotective.

People without cardiovascular disease with that level of coffee intake, compared with those who weren’t coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of death and a range of CVD endpoints, the reductions ranging from 8% to 15% over about 10 years.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

In a separate analysis, participants with CVD at baseline also showed significantly improved survival with coffee intake of two to three cups daily, and no increased risk of arrhythmias.

In a third cut of the UK Biobank data, the clinical benefits of the same level of coffee drinking were observed whether the coffee consumed was the “instant” kind for reconstitution with water or brewed from ground whole beans.

Some clinicians advise their patients that coffee drinking may trigger or worsen some types of heart disease, observed Peter M. Kistler, MD, the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne. But the current analyses suggest that “daily coffee intake should not be discouraged, but rather considered part of a healthy diet.”

Dr. Kistler and colleagues are slated to present the three UK Biobank cohort analyses separately at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. He presented some of the data and commented on them at a press conference held in advance of the meeting.

UK Biobank study participants, who were on average in their late 50s, reported their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee on questionnaires. The researchers observed generally U-shaped relationships between daily number of cups of coffee and incident CVD, heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, atrial fibrillation, any arrhythmia, and death over 10 years.

“This is music to I think many of our patients’ ears, as well as many in the field of cardiology, as those of us that wake up early and stay up late in the hospital consume a fair amount of coffee,” observed Katie Berlacher, MD, associate chief of cardiology education at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

The analyses were based on a large cohort and saw a consistent pattern for several cardiovascular outcomes, observed Dr. Berlacher, incoming ACC scientific session vice chair.

The findings could have a “profound impact in daily clinical care, as many of us caution patients who have or are at risk for having CV[D] against coffee consumption,” she told this news organization by email.

“These studies suggest that we do not have objective evidence to caution nor ask patients to stop drinking coffee, including patients who have arrhythmias.”

But importantly, “these studies are not causal,” she added. “So we cannot go so far as to recommend coffee consumption, though one could posit that randomized prospective studies should be done to elucidate causation.”

Coffee, Dr. Kistler observed, “is the most common cognitive enhancer. It wakes you up, makes you mentally sharper, and it’s a very important component of many people’s daily lives. The take-home message is that clinicians should NOT advise patients to stop drinking coffee up to three cups per day.”

Also, “in non–coffee drinkers, we do not have the data to suggest they should start drinking coffee,” he said. Moreover, people shouldn’t necessarily increase their coffee intake, particularly if it makes them feel anxious or uncomfortable.
 

Benefits with or without known heart disease

The researchers identified 382,535 participants in the UK Biobank cohort who were free of CVD at baseline. Their median age was 57, and 52% were women.

Those who reported regular daily intake of two to three cups of coffee, compared with those who were not coffee drinkers, showed significantly reduced risks of CVD (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), CHD (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), heart failure (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90), arrhythmias (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), and death from any cause over 10 years (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90) (P < .01 for all endpoints).

The risk of CVD death hit its lowest point at an intake of one cup per day (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). The risk of stroke was lowest at less than one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96).

A separate analysis found similar outcomes among a different subset of UK Biobank participants with recognized CVD at baseline. Among 34,279 such persons, those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day, compared with non–coffee drinkers, showed a reduced risk of death over 10 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03).

Among the 24,111 persons diagnosed with arrhythmias at baseline, the lowest mortality risk was observed at one cup per day (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P < .01). Among those with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, one cup per day was associated with a mortality HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P < .01).

In still another analysis of UK Biobank cohort, incident CVD and mortality during the 10-year follow-up was similarly reduced among participants who reported consumption of brewed ground coffee and, separately, instant coffee, compared with non–coffee drinkers. Decaffeinated coffee showed a mostly neutral or inconsistent effect on the clinical endpoints.

The lowest CVD risk was observed at two to three cups per day among those regularly drinking ground coffee (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and those predominantly taking instant coffee (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95).

Potential mechanisms, study limitations

“Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which may explain its potential mild antiarrhythmic properties,” Dr. Kistler said. “Regular coffee drinkers with supraventricular tachycardia coming to the emergency department often need higher adenosine doses to revert.”

Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate, Dr. Kistler added, and coffee has been associated with a significantly reduced risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes.

However, coffee beans contain more than 100 biologically active compounds, he noted. They include antioxidant polyphenols that reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism. Better survival with habitual coffee consumption may be related to improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced inflammation, the researchers noted.

They acknowledged some limitations to the analyses. Cause and effect can’t be determined from the observational data. Also, a cup of coffee in the United Kingdom means about 200-250 mL of brew, but its actual caffeine content can vary from 90 mg to 250 mg. Also, data regarding added sugar or milk was lacking. And UK Biobank participants are predominantly White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

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

Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.

The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.

The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.

It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.

“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”

The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.

Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”

He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.

“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”

Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis

The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.

They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.

“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”

Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”

The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.

“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
 

MIs, bleeding, and LBBB

The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.

“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.

The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.

With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.

The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.

Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.

Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”

Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.

Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.

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

Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.

The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.

The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.

It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.

“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”

The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.

Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”

He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.

“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”

Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis

The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.

They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.

“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”

Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”

The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.

“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
 

MIs, bleeding, and LBBB

The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.

“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.

The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.

With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.

The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.

Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.

Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”

Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.

Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.

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

Five international cardiac surgery associations have banded together to address “substantive concerns” regarding the recently updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) clinical endpoint definitions for aortic valve research.

The VARC-3 update was a multidisciplinary effort that included more than a dozen new or modified definitions for use in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) clinical trials, but drew criticism last year from surgeons that some of its definitions favor TAVR over surgery and that its writing committee had deep ties to industry and lacked diversity.

The new surgical associations’ position statement calls out five specific VARC-3 definitions – rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), and left bundle-branch block (LBBB).

The statement was jointly issued by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, and the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery.

It was copublished in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals.

“We hope that this message can be seen, even if it’s somewhat difficult to hear sometimes, as positive constructive criticism compared to some of the dialogue that we’ve had on social media,” lead author Patrick O. Myers, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said in an interview. “It’s not criticizing people or the process but just trying to make these definitions better to ensure the good design of clinical trials.”

The president of each surgical association recommended representatives to help write the position statement, and once completed over Zoom meetings, it received formal endorsement from each association prior to publication, he said.

Reached for comment, VARC-3 lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, said, “I was pleasantly surprised that their comments were actually pretty minor and that most of these comments are really more a reflection, not of the validity of the definitions, but rather their applications.”

He noted that all the potential issues with the definitions were already discussed during the making of VARC-3 and resolved by consensus of more than 50 experts including the STS president at the time, Food and Drug Administration officials, and experts from the community.

“To be quite honest, I’m not sure they have consensus,” Dr. Généreux said. He added that the writing committee welcomes input from anyone, but “we’re not going to change the definitions to please eight individuals if we strongly believe by consensus of experts in the field that this is not the right thing to do.”

Rehospitalizations and valve thrombosis

The surgical associations praise VARC-3 for providing a standardized definition of bioprosthetic valve failure, but say they will not endorse the inclusion of rehospitalization as a component of the primary efficacy composite endpoint along with all-cause mortality, stroke, and quality of life.

They note that rehospitalizations outnumber mortality events, especially in short follow-up trials, and that the superiority of TAVR at 1 year in the PARTNER 3 trial of low-risk patients was driven primarily by more rehospitalizations in the surgical arm, but that this superiority was waning at 2 years of follow-up.

“The first thing we are calling for is that it shouldn’t be part of the primary composite outcome measure,” Dr. Myers said. But if it really has to be included, a 30-day blanking period for rehospitalization “would acknowledge that there’s a greater risk of rehospitalization during the acute phase of recovering from surgery.”

Dr. Généreux said that VARC-3 provides granular details for defining the different types of hospitalizations, but that a 30-day blanking period makes no sense. “If you close your eyes to anything within 30 days because you don’t like it, you’re missing the opportunity to improve your procedure, to improve your treatment, and to characterize precisely what happened with your patient.”

The new document lauds VARC-3’s focus on patient-centered and clinically relevant endpoints but questions the definition of valve thrombosis as a “clinically significant” thrombus. It points out that the incidence of valve thrombosis was significantly higher with TAVR versus SAVR in PARTNER 3 using the older VARC-2 definition, which did not require evidence of clinical sequelae (2.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .02). Under the new definition, however, half of the thrombi would be relabeled as “nothing there,” Dr. Myers said.

“As we’re doing this in younger and younger patients who will survive longer, there is a question of thrombus having an effect on the valve and leading to earlier structural valve deterioration,” he added. “All this is conjecture. We don’t have the data. So mainly what we’re advocating is that all thrombi should be reported.”
 

MIs, bleeding, and LBBB

The policy statement also criticizes VARC-3’s decision to define periprocedural (type 5) MI using a biomarker-only definition without need of clinical confirmation. Such definitions have been shown to have a very poor prognostic significance in surgical series compared with the Universal Definitions of Myocardial Infarction, Dr. Myers said.

“What’s interesting is that for thrombus and bleeding, they require clinical correlation, but on the perioperative MI they now use a definition that does not require clinical significance, meaning no ECG changes, no regional wall motion abnormalities or things like that,” he observed.

The decision also seems to disregard the EXCEL trial controversy that illustrated how outcomes and a trial’s message can change depending on which definition of periprocedural MI is used.

With regard to bleeding, the surgical associations agree with the VARC-3 recommendation to use different thresholds when bleeding is integrated into a composite endpoint (type 2 or greater for TAVR and types 3 or greater for SAVR) but suggest this important point should be featured in the chapter on bleeding rather than the section on composite endpoints.

The surgical associations say VARC-3 also got it right adding the need for a new permanent pacemaker to the early composite safety endpoint, but that it was a “missed opportunity” not to include new left bundle-branch block in the safety composite, despite recognizing that this may become an important endpoint to consider in the future.

Dr. Myers said that left bundle-branch block could have implications for survival as TAVR moves into lower-risk, younger patients, as some data with 1-year follow-up suggest it has a prognostic impact, even in the higher-risk older patients with more competing risks.

Finally, the surgical associations point out that only two of the 23 VARC-3 authors were practicing cardiac surgeons and say that a more diverse writing group “may help mitigate issues related to the duality of interests.”

Dr. Généreux said that the final author list is not a reflection of the rigorous work done by 11 cardiac surgeons including the two surgeon authors. The VARC-3 writing committee also had a good representation of women, unlike the surgical position statement, which was penned by eight men.

Dr. Myers reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors disclosed ties with EACTS, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Shockwave, and JenaValve. Dr. Généreux disclosed ties with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, Pi-Cardia, and Puzzle Medical.

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

A congressional oversight subcommittee is investigating the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of a high-risk heart pump, citing safety issues detailed by ProPublica.

The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, created to treat patients with severe heart failure, stopped meeting key federal standards as early as 2014. But the FDA took no decisive action even as those problems persisted, and thousands of Americans continued to be implanted with the pump.

By the end of 2020, the FDA had received more than 3,000 reports of deaths related to the HeartWare device, according to a ProPublica data analysis. A father of four died as his children tried to resuscitate him when his device suddenly stopped. A teenager died after vomiting blood in the middle of the night, while his mother struggled to restart a faulty pump.

“I am concerned by FDA’s slow action, over multiple administrations, to protect patients from this product despite early warning signs,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in a scathing letter sent March 22 to the agency’s commissioner, Robert Califf, MD.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested information on how the FDA made regulatory decisions related to the HeartWare device and why it didn’t take further action.

The FDA did not provide comment to ProPublica on the subcommittee’s investigation and said it would respond directly to Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It also reiterated its response to ProPublica’s findings and said the agency had been closely overseeing the HeartWare device since 2012, with patient safety as its “highest priority.”

Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, took the device off the market in June 2021. The company said that new data showed a competing heart pump had better outcomes. In response to the ProPublica investigation 2 months later, the company said it took the FDA’s inspections seriously and had worked closely with the agency to address issues with the device.

Medtronic declined to comment on the subcommittee’s investigation.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi asked in the letter if any steps were being taken to address how patients, doctors and other federal agencies are notified of problems that the FDA finds with medical devices.

Many patients told ProPublica they were never informed of issues with the HeartWare pump before or after their implants. Some people who still have the device said they weren’t told when it was taken off the market. Medtronic said in December it had confirmed 90% of U.S. patients had received notification of the HeartWare discontinuation, but that it was still working to reach the other 10%.

About 2,000 patients still had HeartWare pumps as of last year. The FDA and Medtronic recommended against removing those devices barring medical necessity because the surgery to do so carries a high risk.

In his letter, Mr. Krishnamoorthi gave the FDA a deadline of April 5 to respond.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A congressional oversight subcommittee is investigating the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of a high-risk heart pump, citing safety issues detailed by ProPublica.

The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, created to treat patients with severe heart failure, stopped meeting key federal standards as early as 2014. But the FDA took no decisive action even as those problems persisted, and thousands of Americans continued to be implanted with the pump.

By the end of 2020, the FDA had received more than 3,000 reports of deaths related to the HeartWare device, according to a ProPublica data analysis. A father of four died as his children tried to resuscitate him when his device suddenly stopped. A teenager died after vomiting blood in the middle of the night, while his mother struggled to restart a faulty pump.

“I am concerned by FDA’s slow action, over multiple administrations, to protect patients from this product despite early warning signs,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in a scathing letter sent March 22 to the agency’s commissioner, Robert Califf, MD.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested information on how the FDA made regulatory decisions related to the HeartWare device and why it didn’t take further action.

The FDA did not provide comment to ProPublica on the subcommittee’s investigation and said it would respond directly to Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It also reiterated its response to ProPublica’s findings and said the agency had been closely overseeing the HeartWare device since 2012, with patient safety as its “highest priority.”

Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, took the device off the market in June 2021. The company said that new data showed a competing heart pump had better outcomes. In response to the ProPublica investigation 2 months later, the company said it took the FDA’s inspections seriously and had worked closely with the agency to address issues with the device.

Medtronic declined to comment on the subcommittee’s investigation.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi asked in the letter if any steps were being taken to address how patients, doctors and other federal agencies are notified of problems that the FDA finds with medical devices.

Many patients told ProPublica they were never informed of issues with the HeartWare pump before or after their implants. Some people who still have the device said they weren’t told when it was taken off the market. Medtronic said in December it had confirmed 90% of U.S. patients had received notification of the HeartWare discontinuation, but that it was still working to reach the other 10%.

About 2,000 patients still had HeartWare pumps as of last year. The FDA and Medtronic recommended against removing those devices barring medical necessity because the surgery to do so carries a high risk.

In his letter, Mr. Krishnamoorthi gave the FDA a deadline of April 5 to respond.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A congressional oversight subcommittee is investigating the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of a high-risk heart pump, citing safety issues detailed by ProPublica.

The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, created to treat patients with severe heart failure, stopped meeting key federal standards as early as 2014. But the FDA took no decisive action even as those problems persisted, and thousands of Americans continued to be implanted with the pump.

By the end of 2020, the FDA had received more than 3,000 reports of deaths related to the HeartWare device, according to a ProPublica data analysis. A father of four died as his children tried to resuscitate him when his device suddenly stopped. A teenager died after vomiting blood in the middle of the night, while his mother struggled to restart a faulty pump.

“I am concerned by FDA’s slow action, over multiple administrations, to protect patients from this product despite early warning signs,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., said in a scathing letter sent March 22 to the agency’s commissioner, Robert Califf, MD.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested information on how the FDA made regulatory decisions related to the HeartWare device and why it didn’t take further action.

The FDA did not provide comment to ProPublica on the subcommittee’s investigation and said it would respond directly to Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It also reiterated its response to ProPublica’s findings and said the agency had been closely overseeing the HeartWare device since 2012, with patient safety as its “highest priority.”

Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, took the device off the market in June 2021. The company said that new data showed a competing heart pump had better outcomes. In response to the ProPublica investigation 2 months later, the company said it took the FDA’s inspections seriously and had worked closely with the agency to address issues with the device.

Medtronic declined to comment on the subcommittee’s investigation.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi asked in the letter if any steps were being taken to address how patients, doctors and other federal agencies are notified of problems that the FDA finds with medical devices.

Many patients told ProPublica they were never informed of issues with the HeartWare pump before or after their implants. Some people who still have the device said they weren’t told when it was taken off the market. Medtronic said in December it had confirmed 90% of U.S. patients had received notification of the HeartWare discontinuation, but that it was still working to reach the other 10%.

About 2,000 patients still had HeartWare pumps as of last year. The FDA and Medtronic recommended against removing those devices barring medical necessity because the surgery to do so carries a high risk.

In his letter, Mr. Krishnamoorthi gave the FDA a deadline of April 5 to respond.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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