Cardiology News

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

As public attention continues to focus on making insulin affordable, a new online guide is available to help clinicians approach discussions with patients about diabetes medication affordability and access.

The resource, “Having Healthcare Cost Conversations to Improve Patient Outcomes: A Practical Guide,” was jointly developed by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and Beyond Type 1, the nonprofit patient advocacy organization.

Indeed, the guide appeared as President Biden discussed his proposal to cap insulin costs at $35 per insulin vial during the State of the Union address, during which he introduced a young boy with type 1 diabetes in the guest box, as reported by this news organization. On March 3, Civica, a nonprofit coalition of health systems and philanthropies, announced it plans to manufacture generic insulin at a deeply discounted price, as reported by this news organization.

“Just to see diabetes front and center at the State of the Union followed by these announcements is certainly reflective of our own advocacy effort to make sure that people have affordable options for insulin, diabetes medications, services,” Kate Thomas, ADCES chief advocacy and external affairs officer, said in an interview. She added that ADCES has also pushed for legislation in Congress that would expand access to diabetes self-management training under the Medicare program.

The guide includes advice about overcoming barriers to discussing treatment costs with patients, suggested questions to ask patients about specific costs, and determinants of health and conversational approaches. Links are provided to resources for obtaining affordable insulin, other diabetes medications, and continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump equipment.

“We know that, especially during primary care visits, there is limited time along with numbers of issues to talk about, so I think our challenge is how do we prioritize these conversations with something that can lead to action, not just saying you should do this but how do you actually do it,” Ms. Thomas said.

The introduction summarizes results from a 2021 Beyond Type 1 survey confirming prior findings reported by this news organization that cost is a frequent barrier for many individuals living with diabetes. “Especially right now where we are in terms of the impact of the pandemic and with peoples’ job statuses changing, I think it’s worthwhile to raise this in patient encounters,” Ms. Thomas said.
 

Overcoming conversational barriers

The first of three tables in the guide provides a list of “barriers to having a cost conversation” in the first column and “suggested solutions” in the second. For example, for the barrier, “You have insufficient time and/or knowledge about cost,” the suggestion is, “request and share available faculty and resources, including benefits coordinators, social workers, and community-based organizations. Work with the pharmacists and other members of the diabetes care team to identify resources that lower cost of medications.”

And for another barrier, “patients are often embarrassed or ashamed to initiate discussions of affordability,” the suggested solution is: “Normalize the issue of cost of care barriers for patients.”

A second table offers specific questions to ask patients about costs of medications and care, determinants of health, and financial barriers. These include: “What are some challenges you’ve had to accessing your medications or taking them as prescribed? What are some out-of-pocket health care costs you need help with? What challenges do you have accessing healthy food for you and your family?”

A link to a screening tool for social determinants of health is also included.

Language suggestions include talking about “cost of care” rather than “money,” asking patients if they’ve understood everything correctly by repeating back what they’ve said, and asking for confirmation and discussing follow-up.

Overall, the tool is designed to be a “broad conversation starter,” and not just about medications, Ms. Thomas said. “This is for all audiences and it’s meant to be something that the provider can tailor depending on who they’re speaking to. ... It’s about medications, but also the entire cost of care, including services and devices, transportation to appointments, access to food. ... Diabetes care isn’t just taking medication. It’s so many more factors.”

Ms. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As public attention continues to focus on making insulin affordable, a new online guide is available to help clinicians approach discussions with patients about diabetes medication affordability and access.

The resource, “Having Healthcare Cost Conversations to Improve Patient Outcomes: A Practical Guide,” was jointly developed by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and Beyond Type 1, the nonprofit patient advocacy organization.

Indeed, the guide appeared as President Biden discussed his proposal to cap insulin costs at $35 per insulin vial during the State of the Union address, during which he introduced a young boy with type 1 diabetes in the guest box, as reported by this news organization. On March 3, Civica, a nonprofit coalition of health systems and philanthropies, announced it plans to manufacture generic insulin at a deeply discounted price, as reported by this news organization.

“Just to see diabetes front and center at the State of the Union followed by these announcements is certainly reflective of our own advocacy effort to make sure that people have affordable options for insulin, diabetes medications, services,” Kate Thomas, ADCES chief advocacy and external affairs officer, said in an interview. She added that ADCES has also pushed for legislation in Congress that would expand access to diabetes self-management training under the Medicare program.

The guide includes advice about overcoming barriers to discussing treatment costs with patients, suggested questions to ask patients about specific costs, and determinants of health and conversational approaches. Links are provided to resources for obtaining affordable insulin, other diabetes medications, and continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump equipment.

“We know that, especially during primary care visits, there is limited time along with numbers of issues to talk about, so I think our challenge is how do we prioritize these conversations with something that can lead to action, not just saying you should do this but how do you actually do it,” Ms. Thomas said.

The introduction summarizes results from a 2021 Beyond Type 1 survey confirming prior findings reported by this news organization that cost is a frequent barrier for many individuals living with diabetes. “Especially right now where we are in terms of the impact of the pandemic and with peoples’ job statuses changing, I think it’s worthwhile to raise this in patient encounters,” Ms. Thomas said.
 

Overcoming conversational barriers

The first of three tables in the guide provides a list of “barriers to having a cost conversation” in the first column and “suggested solutions” in the second. For example, for the barrier, “You have insufficient time and/or knowledge about cost,” the suggestion is, “request and share available faculty and resources, including benefits coordinators, social workers, and community-based organizations. Work with the pharmacists and other members of the diabetes care team to identify resources that lower cost of medications.”

And for another barrier, “patients are often embarrassed or ashamed to initiate discussions of affordability,” the suggested solution is: “Normalize the issue of cost of care barriers for patients.”

A second table offers specific questions to ask patients about costs of medications and care, determinants of health, and financial barriers. These include: “What are some challenges you’ve had to accessing your medications or taking them as prescribed? What are some out-of-pocket health care costs you need help with? What challenges do you have accessing healthy food for you and your family?”

A link to a screening tool for social determinants of health is also included.

Language suggestions include talking about “cost of care” rather than “money,” asking patients if they’ve understood everything correctly by repeating back what they’ve said, and asking for confirmation and discussing follow-up.

Overall, the tool is designed to be a “broad conversation starter,” and not just about medications, Ms. Thomas said. “This is for all audiences and it’s meant to be something that the provider can tailor depending on who they’re speaking to. ... It’s about medications, but also the entire cost of care, including services and devices, transportation to appointments, access to food. ... Diabetes care isn’t just taking medication. It’s so many more factors.”

Ms. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As public attention continues to focus on making insulin affordable, a new online guide is available to help clinicians approach discussions with patients about diabetes medication affordability and access.

The resource, “Having Healthcare Cost Conversations to Improve Patient Outcomes: A Practical Guide,” was jointly developed by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and Beyond Type 1, the nonprofit patient advocacy organization.

Indeed, the guide appeared as President Biden discussed his proposal to cap insulin costs at $35 per insulin vial during the State of the Union address, during which he introduced a young boy with type 1 diabetes in the guest box, as reported by this news organization. On March 3, Civica, a nonprofit coalition of health systems and philanthropies, announced it plans to manufacture generic insulin at a deeply discounted price, as reported by this news organization.

“Just to see diabetes front and center at the State of the Union followed by these announcements is certainly reflective of our own advocacy effort to make sure that people have affordable options for insulin, diabetes medications, services,” Kate Thomas, ADCES chief advocacy and external affairs officer, said in an interview. She added that ADCES has also pushed for legislation in Congress that would expand access to diabetes self-management training under the Medicare program.

The guide includes advice about overcoming barriers to discussing treatment costs with patients, suggested questions to ask patients about specific costs, and determinants of health and conversational approaches. Links are provided to resources for obtaining affordable insulin, other diabetes medications, and continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump equipment.

“We know that, especially during primary care visits, there is limited time along with numbers of issues to talk about, so I think our challenge is how do we prioritize these conversations with something that can lead to action, not just saying you should do this but how do you actually do it,” Ms. Thomas said.

The introduction summarizes results from a 2021 Beyond Type 1 survey confirming prior findings reported by this news organization that cost is a frequent barrier for many individuals living with diabetes. “Especially right now where we are in terms of the impact of the pandemic and with peoples’ job statuses changing, I think it’s worthwhile to raise this in patient encounters,” Ms. Thomas said.
 

Overcoming conversational barriers

The first of three tables in the guide provides a list of “barriers to having a cost conversation” in the first column and “suggested solutions” in the second. For example, for the barrier, “You have insufficient time and/or knowledge about cost,” the suggestion is, “request and share available faculty and resources, including benefits coordinators, social workers, and community-based organizations. Work with the pharmacists and other members of the diabetes care team to identify resources that lower cost of medications.”

And for another barrier, “patients are often embarrassed or ashamed to initiate discussions of affordability,” the suggested solution is: “Normalize the issue of cost of care barriers for patients.”

A second table offers specific questions to ask patients about costs of medications and care, determinants of health, and financial barriers. These include: “What are some challenges you’ve had to accessing your medications or taking them as prescribed? What are some out-of-pocket health care costs you need help with? What challenges do you have accessing healthy food for you and your family?”

A link to a screening tool for social determinants of health is also included.

Language suggestions include talking about “cost of care” rather than “money,” asking patients if they’ve understood everything correctly by repeating back what they’ve said, and asking for confirmation and discussing follow-up.

Overall, the tool is designed to be a “broad conversation starter,” and not just about medications, Ms. Thomas said. “This is for all audiences and it’s meant to be something that the provider can tailor depending on who they’re speaking to. ... It’s about medications, but also the entire cost of care, including services and devices, transportation to appointments, access to food. ... Diabetes care isn’t just taking medication. It’s so many more factors.”

Ms. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Should screening elderly patients for atrial fibrillation (AFib) during primary care visits be as routine as checking blood pressure, respiration, and other vital signs? A new study says the answer is “maybe” for some people.

The use of handheld, single-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) did not increase diagnoses of AFib overall in patients aged 65 and older, but it did in patients 85 and up, researchers reported in Circulation.

“Incorporating single-lead ECGs into routine medical assessments as a new vital sign was widely feasible. Over 90% of people who were offered screening agreed to it and underwent screening,” said Steven Lubitz, MD, of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Service and Cardiovascular Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who led the study.

Because advanced age is associated with a substantially increased risk of both AFib and stroke, point-of-care screening might be an efficient use of handheld ECGs, Dr. Lubitz said.

“The technology simply requires patients to place their fingers on the device to record an electrocardiogram and can be easily embedded in the routine clinical practice of primary care physicians,” he said in an interview.

The typical person has a 30% lifetime risk of developing AFib, and the chances of experiencing a stroke associated with the arrhythmia can be reduced significantly with anticoagulants, Dr. Lubitz said.

Professional organizations are split about the utility of screening for AFib. The European Society of Cardiology recommends opportunistic screening with either pulse palpation or ECG rhythm strip at clinic visits for patients 65 and older. The National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand have issued similar guidelines.

However, screening for AFib is not considered standard of care in the United States – although Dr. Lubitz predicted that that would change.

“I think the guidelines in the United States will evolve in the next few years, because I think we’re getting closer to understanding who we should be screening for atrial fibrillation and how we should be screening,” Dr. Lubitz told this news organization.
 

‘Very reassuring’ results

The randomized controlled trial found that for patients 85 and older, use of handheld ECGs led to a nearly 2% increase in new diagnoses of AFib in the screening group compared to conventional care.

The researchers also demonstrated an increased likelihood of diagnosing AFib during the patient’s primary-care encounter than at other sites, such as the emergency department or inpatient settings that might be more costly and resource-intensive. Moreover, the study reported that point-of-care screening was associated with high rates of oral anticoagulation prescriptions written for patients with newly diagnosed AFib, a finding Dr. Lubitz called “very reassuring.”

The Mass General researchers used single-lead devices attached to a tablet computer to screen more than 35,000 men and women from 16 primary care sites affiliated with the hospital’s practice-based research network.

Half the sites were randomly selected to include the screening intervention, where medical assistants used handheld ECGs at the start of the visit while checking routine vital signs.

The 1-year study screened 91% of eligible patients, demonstrating that single-lead rhythm assessment is feasible as part of routine primary care practice, Dr. Lubitz said. This finding supports other studies suggesting that handheld devices can enable rapid and scalable mass screening.

“We demonstrated that integration into routine practice by clinical personnel – in this case, medical assistants – is feasible. No study has measured and demonstrated such a high integration with routine care, reflecting both patient interest in screening and feasibility of incorporating screening into busy clinical practices,” Dr. Lubitz said.

Mobile ECGs with the handheld device take about 30 seconds to perform. In contrast, standard ECGs used in outpatient practices are bulky, and recording the ECG can take roughly 10 minutes.

Anthony Leazzo, DO, chairman of family practice at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital, in Geneva, Ill., noted that smartwatches provide an alternative technology for detecting AFib.

But “a handheld, one-lead device would be more beneficial and should be more sensitive by measuring electrical activity similar to a normal ECG,” he said.

However, Dr. Leazzo said using such technology would need to be cost-effective because the patients at highest risk for AFib usually are on fixed incomes. Consumer versions of the devices can cost under $100. Dr. Lubitz said the actual cost for devices and a software platform used for a medical enterprise may differ.

Handheld ECGs are gradually being integrated into clinical practices, a trend driven by the rapid growth of telemedicine to remotely assess patients, Dr. Lubitz said.

“Our work affirmed that single-lead devices generate information for the physician that is actionable, though the proportion of newly detected AFib cases using a point-of-care ECG screening approach is likely to be very small,” Dr. Lubitz said in an interview. “For that reason, we think handheld devices are best deployed for people at the highest risk of AFib and stroke, and age is an excellent surrogate for that determination.”

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb–Pfizer Alliance.

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

Should screening elderly patients for atrial fibrillation (AFib) during primary care visits be as routine as checking blood pressure, respiration, and other vital signs? A new study says the answer is “maybe” for some people.

The use of handheld, single-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) did not increase diagnoses of AFib overall in patients aged 65 and older, but it did in patients 85 and up, researchers reported in Circulation.

“Incorporating single-lead ECGs into routine medical assessments as a new vital sign was widely feasible. Over 90% of people who were offered screening agreed to it and underwent screening,” said Steven Lubitz, MD, of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Service and Cardiovascular Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who led the study.

Because advanced age is associated with a substantially increased risk of both AFib and stroke, point-of-care screening might be an efficient use of handheld ECGs, Dr. Lubitz said.

“The technology simply requires patients to place their fingers on the device to record an electrocardiogram and can be easily embedded in the routine clinical practice of primary care physicians,” he said in an interview.

The typical person has a 30% lifetime risk of developing AFib, and the chances of experiencing a stroke associated with the arrhythmia can be reduced significantly with anticoagulants, Dr. Lubitz said.

Professional organizations are split about the utility of screening for AFib. The European Society of Cardiology recommends opportunistic screening with either pulse palpation or ECG rhythm strip at clinic visits for patients 65 and older. The National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand have issued similar guidelines.

However, screening for AFib is not considered standard of care in the United States – although Dr. Lubitz predicted that that would change.

“I think the guidelines in the United States will evolve in the next few years, because I think we’re getting closer to understanding who we should be screening for atrial fibrillation and how we should be screening,” Dr. Lubitz told this news organization.
 

‘Very reassuring’ results

The randomized controlled trial found that for patients 85 and older, use of handheld ECGs led to a nearly 2% increase in new diagnoses of AFib in the screening group compared to conventional care.

The researchers also demonstrated an increased likelihood of diagnosing AFib during the patient’s primary-care encounter than at other sites, such as the emergency department or inpatient settings that might be more costly and resource-intensive. Moreover, the study reported that point-of-care screening was associated with high rates of oral anticoagulation prescriptions written for patients with newly diagnosed AFib, a finding Dr. Lubitz called “very reassuring.”

The Mass General researchers used single-lead devices attached to a tablet computer to screen more than 35,000 men and women from 16 primary care sites affiliated with the hospital’s practice-based research network.

Half the sites were randomly selected to include the screening intervention, where medical assistants used handheld ECGs at the start of the visit while checking routine vital signs.

The 1-year study screened 91% of eligible patients, demonstrating that single-lead rhythm assessment is feasible as part of routine primary care practice, Dr. Lubitz said. This finding supports other studies suggesting that handheld devices can enable rapid and scalable mass screening.

“We demonstrated that integration into routine practice by clinical personnel – in this case, medical assistants – is feasible. No study has measured and demonstrated such a high integration with routine care, reflecting both patient interest in screening and feasibility of incorporating screening into busy clinical practices,” Dr. Lubitz said.

Mobile ECGs with the handheld device take about 30 seconds to perform. In contrast, standard ECGs used in outpatient practices are bulky, and recording the ECG can take roughly 10 minutes.

Anthony Leazzo, DO, chairman of family practice at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital, in Geneva, Ill., noted that smartwatches provide an alternative technology for detecting AFib.

But “a handheld, one-lead device would be more beneficial and should be more sensitive by measuring electrical activity similar to a normal ECG,” he said.

However, Dr. Leazzo said using such technology would need to be cost-effective because the patients at highest risk for AFib usually are on fixed incomes. Consumer versions of the devices can cost under $100. Dr. Lubitz said the actual cost for devices and a software platform used for a medical enterprise may differ.

Handheld ECGs are gradually being integrated into clinical practices, a trend driven by the rapid growth of telemedicine to remotely assess patients, Dr. Lubitz said.

“Our work affirmed that single-lead devices generate information for the physician that is actionable, though the proportion of newly detected AFib cases using a point-of-care ECG screening approach is likely to be very small,” Dr. Lubitz said in an interview. “For that reason, we think handheld devices are best deployed for people at the highest risk of AFib and stroke, and age is an excellent surrogate for that determination.”

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb–Pfizer Alliance.

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

Should screening elderly patients for atrial fibrillation (AFib) during primary care visits be as routine as checking blood pressure, respiration, and other vital signs? A new study says the answer is “maybe” for some people.

The use of handheld, single-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) did not increase diagnoses of AFib overall in patients aged 65 and older, but it did in patients 85 and up, researchers reported in Circulation.

“Incorporating single-lead ECGs into routine medical assessments as a new vital sign was widely feasible. Over 90% of people who were offered screening agreed to it and underwent screening,” said Steven Lubitz, MD, of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Service and Cardiovascular Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who led the study.

Because advanced age is associated with a substantially increased risk of both AFib and stroke, point-of-care screening might be an efficient use of handheld ECGs, Dr. Lubitz said.

“The technology simply requires patients to place their fingers on the device to record an electrocardiogram and can be easily embedded in the routine clinical practice of primary care physicians,” he said in an interview.

The typical person has a 30% lifetime risk of developing AFib, and the chances of experiencing a stroke associated with the arrhythmia can be reduced significantly with anticoagulants, Dr. Lubitz said.

Professional organizations are split about the utility of screening for AFib. The European Society of Cardiology recommends opportunistic screening with either pulse palpation or ECG rhythm strip at clinic visits for patients 65 and older. The National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand have issued similar guidelines.

However, screening for AFib is not considered standard of care in the United States – although Dr. Lubitz predicted that that would change.

“I think the guidelines in the United States will evolve in the next few years, because I think we’re getting closer to understanding who we should be screening for atrial fibrillation and how we should be screening,” Dr. Lubitz told this news organization.
 

‘Very reassuring’ results

The randomized controlled trial found that for patients 85 and older, use of handheld ECGs led to a nearly 2% increase in new diagnoses of AFib in the screening group compared to conventional care.

The researchers also demonstrated an increased likelihood of diagnosing AFib during the patient’s primary-care encounter than at other sites, such as the emergency department or inpatient settings that might be more costly and resource-intensive. Moreover, the study reported that point-of-care screening was associated with high rates of oral anticoagulation prescriptions written for patients with newly diagnosed AFib, a finding Dr. Lubitz called “very reassuring.”

The Mass General researchers used single-lead devices attached to a tablet computer to screen more than 35,000 men and women from 16 primary care sites affiliated with the hospital’s practice-based research network.

Half the sites were randomly selected to include the screening intervention, where medical assistants used handheld ECGs at the start of the visit while checking routine vital signs.

The 1-year study screened 91% of eligible patients, demonstrating that single-lead rhythm assessment is feasible as part of routine primary care practice, Dr. Lubitz said. This finding supports other studies suggesting that handheld devices can enable rapid and scalable mass screening.

“We demonstrated that integration into routine practice by clinical personnel – in this case, medical assistants – is feasible. No study has measured and demonstrated such a high integration with routine care, reflecting both patient interest in screening and feasibility of incorporating screening into busy clinical practices,” Dr. Lubitz said.

Mobile ECGs with the handheld device take about 30 seconds to perform. In contrast, standard ECGs used in outpatient practices are bulky, and recording the ECG can take roughly 10 minutes.

Anthony Leazzo, DO, chairman of family practice at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital, in Geneva, Ill., noted that smartwatches provide an alternative technology for detecting AFib.

But “a handheld, one-lead device would be more beneficial and should be more sensitive by measuring electrical activity similar to a normal ECG,” he said.

However, Dr. Leazzo said using such technology would need to be cost-effective because the patients at highest risk for AFib usually are on fixed incomes. Consumer versions of the devices can cost under $100. Dr. Lubitz said the actual cost for devices and a software platform used for a medical enterprise may differ.

Handheld ECGs are gradually being integrated into clinical practices, a trend driven by the rapid growth of telemedicine to remotely assess patients, Dr. Lubitz said.

“Our work affirmed that single-lead devices generate information for the physician that is actionable, though the proportion of newly detected AFib cases using a point-of-care ECG screening approach is likely to be very small,” Dr. Lubitz said in an interview. “For that reason, we think handheld devices are best deployed for people at the highest risk of AFib and stroke, and age is an excellent surrogate for that determination.”

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb–Pfizer Alliance.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

At the American College of Cardiology’s 70th annual scientific sessions, 93% of the results from the late-breaking clinical trial sessions and featured clinical research sessions were presented by men.

Although women were well represented on panels, and chaired or cochaired sessions, thanks to the ACC’s ongoing efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion, they rarely got to give the big talks.

“Unfortunately, women continue to be underrepresented among CV clinical trial leadership, leading to a lack of subject diversity,” Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., wrote in a review published online Feb. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

An analysis of cardiovascular trials published during the past 4 years showed that women comprised only 10.1% of clinical trial leadership committees, and more than half of the trials had no women at all as part of the trial leadership team. About 10% of the trials had a woman as first or senior author.

In an interview, Dr. Walsh said she was prompted to write her review because she found the absence of women presenters at ACC 21 so striking.

“ACC 21 was held virtually because of COVID. This gave me the opportunity to easily view all of the research sessions. I attended all of the late-breaking clinical trials and featured clinical research sessions live while they were being presented, and it slowly dawned on me as I was watching that the vast majority of the presenters were men,” she said.

“The ACC does what it can to ensure a good gender mix of panelists and session chairs, but what it cannot control is who presents the data. The fact that 93% of these talks were given by men was astonishing to me,” Dr. Walsh said.

Of the three trials presented by women, one was on sex-specific outcomes in high-risk patients receiving ticagrelor with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (a subanalysis of the TWILIGHT study); one was on the impact of COVID-19 on the global cardiovascular workforce (the ACC 2020 Well Being Study); and one was on the prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvanttherapy with candesartan and metoprolol (the PRADA study).

Most of the presenters were regulars at the ACC podium. As Dr. Walsh observed: “This was assuredly not the inaugural turn at the international podium for these male trial presenters.”

So why are women so noticeably absent among the leaders of cardiovascular clinical trials research?

The root cause for this underrepresentation begins with the low number of women who lead clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine and surgery, and the fact that there are fewer female cardiologists than male cardiologists to begin with.

Then there is the lack of mentorship, which, Dr. Walsh said, “really does occur along gendered lines, with men mentoring men.”

In addition, industry-funded trials tend to feed a nondiverse investigator pipeline and other research collaborations often encompass established networks, Dr. Walsh noted.

“When industry is embarking on a new trial of a drug or device, it tends to lean back on who they have had led before. It really gets down to who you know, so getting new people in is fairly difficult,” she said.

Several initiatives to increase diversity in CV clinical trial leadership are ongoing by the ACC and other organizations.

For example, Women as One gives “escalator awards” to boost or escalate the training of highly qualified female cardiologists through targeted funding, mentorship, and networking.

The ACC’s “Clinical Trial Research: Upping Your Game” program aims to develop and train the next generation of a diverse and inclusive clinical trials workforce, focusing not only on women but on other traditionally underrepresented groups.

“We’re now in our third cohort of investigators who are early in their careers. We’re arming them with the skills to become successful in becoming investigators and then going up the chain to trial leadership. We are focusing our efforts on those who are underrepresented in cardiology – women, native Americans, Latinx, and Black investigators. We are hoping to increase diversity through that way, but more still needs to be done,” she said.

Trial sponsors, whether federally funded or industry sponsored, need to insist on diversity of the trial steering committee, and principal investigators need to consider diversity.

“A rethinking of who is eligible to present important trial results is needed,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The informal, or formal, pecking order of CV trial leadership needs to be reworked. All members of the steering committee should be possible presenters, and women should not be asked to report late-breaking results of trials that are reporting sex-specific results or data that are pertinent only to a female population.”

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

At the American College of Cardiology’s 70th annual scientific sessions, 93% of the results from the late-breaking clinical trial sessions and featured clinical research sessions were presented by men.

Although women were well represented on panels, and chaired or cochaired sessions, thanks to the ACC’s ongoing efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion, they rarely got to give the big talks.

“Unfortunately, women continue to be underrepresented among CV clinical trial leadership, leading to a lack of subject diversity,” Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., wrote in a review published online Feb. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

An analysis of cardiovascular trials published during the past 4 years showed that women comprised only 10.1% of clinical trial leadership committees, and more than half of the trials had no women at all as part of the trial leadership team. About 10% of the trials had a woman as first or senior author.

In an interview, Dr. Walsh said she was prompted to write her review because she found the absence of women presenters at ACC 21 so striking.

“ACC 21 was held virtually because of COVID. This gave me the opportunity to easily view all of the research sessions. I attended all of the late-breaking clinical trials and featured clinical research sessions live while they were being presented, and it slowly dawned on me as I was watching that the vast majority of the presenters were men,” she said.

“The ACC does what it can to ensure a good gender mix of panelists and session chairs, but what it cannot control is who presents the data. The fact that 93% of these talks were given by men was astonishing to me,” Dr. Walsh said.

Of the three trials presented by women, one was on sex-specific outcomes in high-risk patients receiving ticagrelor with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (a subanalysis of the TWILIGHT study); one was on the impact of COVID-19 on the global cardiovascular workforce (the ACC 2020 Well Being Study); and one was on the prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvanttherapy with candesartan and metoprolol (the PRADA study).

Most of the presenters were regulars at the ACC podium. As Dr. Walsh observed: “This was assuredly not the inaugural turn at the international podium for these male trial presenters.”

So why are women so noticeably absent among the leaders of cardiovascular clinical trials research?

The root cause for this underrepresentation begins with the low number of women who lead clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine and surgery, and the fact that there are fewer female cardiologists than male cardiologists to begin with.

Then there is the lack of mentorship, which, Dr. Walsh said, “really does occur along gendered lines, with men mentoring men.”

In addition, industry-funded trials tend to feed a nondiverse investigator pipeline and other research collaborations often encompass established networks, Dr. Walsh noted.

“When industry is embarking on a new trial of a drug or device, it tends to lean back on who they have had led before. It really gets down to who you know, so getting new people in is fairly difficult,” she said.

Several initiatives to increase diversity in CV clinical trial leadership are ongoing by the ACC and other organizations.

For example, Women as One gives “escalator awards” to boost or escalate the training of highly qualified female cardiologists through targeted funding, mentorship, and networking.

The ACC’s “Clinical Trial Research: Upping Your Game” program aims to develop and train the next generation of a diverse and inclusive clinical trials workforce, focusing not only on women but on other traditionally underrepresented groups.

“We’re now in our third cohort of investigators who are early in their careers. We’re arming them with the skills to become successful in becoming investigators and then going up the chain to trial leadership. We are focusing our efforts on those who are underrepresented in cardiology – women, native Americans, Latinx, and Black investigators. We are hoping to increase diversity through that way, but more still needs to be done,” she said.

Trial sponsors, whether federally funded or industry sponsored, need to insist on diversity of the trial steering committee, and principal investigators need to consider diversity.

“A rethinking of who is eligible to present important trial results is needed,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The informal, or formal, pecking order of CV trial leadership needs to be reworked. All members of the steering committee should be possible presenters, and women should not be asked to report late-breaking results of trials that are reporting sex-specific results or data that are pertinent only to a female population.”

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

At the American College of Cardiology’s 70th annual scientific sessions, 93% of the results from the late-breaking clinical trial sessions and featured clinical research sessions were presented by men.

Although women were well represented on panels, and chaired or cochaired sessions, thanks to the ACC’s ongoing efforts to promote gender diversity and inclusion, they rarely got to give the big talks.

“Unfortunately, women continue to be underrepresented among CV clinical trial leadership, leading to a lack of subject diversity,” Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., wrote in a review published online Feb. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

An analysis of cardiovascular trials published during the past 4 years showed that women comprised only 10.1% of clinical trial leadership committees, and more than half of the trials had no women at all as part of the trial leadership team. About 10% of the trials had a woman as first or senior author.

In an interview, Dr. Walsh said she was prompted to write her review because she found the absence of women presenters at ACC 21 so striking.

“ACC 21 was held virtually because of COVID. This gave me the opportunity to easily view all of the research sessions. I attended all of the late-breaking clinical trials and featured clinical research sessions live while they were being presented, and it slowly dawned on me as I was watching that the vast majority of the presenters were men,” she said.

“The ACC does what it can to ensure a good gender mix of panelists and session chairs, but what it cannot control is who presents the data. The fact that 93% of these talks were given by men was astonishing to me,” Dr. Walsh said.

Of the three trials presented by women, one was on sex-specific outcomes in high-risk patients receiving ticagrelor with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (a subanalysis of the TWILIGHT study); one was on the impact of COVID-19 on the global cardiovascular workforce (the ACC 2020 Well Being Study); and one was on the prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvanttherapy with candesartan and metoprolol (the PRADA study).

Most of the presenters were regulars at the ACC podium. As Dr. Walsh observed: “This was assuredly not the inaugural turn at the international podium for these male trial presenters.”

So why are women so noticeably absent among the leaders of cardiovascular clinical trials research?

The root cause for this underrepresentation begins with the low number of women who lead clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine and surgery, and the fact that there are fewer female cardiologists than male cardiologists to begin with.

Then there is the lack of mentorship, which, Dr. Walsh said, “really does occur along gendered lines, with men mentoring men.”

In addition, industry-funded trials tend to feed a nondiverse investigator pipeline and other research collaborations often encompass established networks, Dr. Walsh noted.

“When industry is embarking on a new trial of a drug or device, it tends to lean back on who they have had led before. It really gets down to who you know, so getting new people in is fairly difficult,” she said.

Several initiatives to increase diversity in CV clinical trial leadership are ongoing by the ACC and other organizations.

For example, Women as One gives “escalator awards” to boost or escalate the training of highly qualified female cardiologists through targeted funding, mentorship, and networking.

The ACC’s “Clinical Trial Research: Upping Your Game” program aims to develop and train the next generation of a diverse and inclusive clinical trials workforce, focusing not only on women but on other traditionally underrepresented groups.

“We’re now in our third cohort of investigators who are early in their careers. We’re arming them with the skills to become successful in becoming investigators and then going up the chain to trial leadership. We are focusing our efforts on those who are underrepresented in cardiology – women, native Americans, Latinx, and Black investigators. We are hoping to increase diversity through that way, but more still needs to be done,” she said.

Trial sponsors, whether federally funded or industry sponsored, need to insist on diversity of the trial steering committee, and principal investigators need to consider diversity.

“A rethinking of who is eligible to present important trial results is needed,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The informal, or formal, pecking order of CV trial leadership needs to be reworked. All members of the steering committee should be possible presenters, and women should not be asked to report late-breaking results of trials that are reporting sex-specific results or data that are pertinent only to a female population.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

Giving patients and their providers genetic test results for kidney failure risk promotes positive behavioral change that could decrease an individual’s likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal failure (ESRF), a new pilot study suggests.

“Disclosing APOL1 genetic testing results to patients of African ancestry with hypertension and their clinicians was associated with a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure [SBP], increased kidney disease screening, and positive self-reported behavior change in those with high-risk genotypes,” Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported.

“These two measurements – the change in blood pressure and increased kidney function tests – act as hallmarks for detecting beneficial lifestyle change,” Dr. Nadkarni noted in a statement from his institution.

“For many years, researchers have wondered whether reporting APOL1 genetic test results would help improve clinical management. This is the first pragmatic randomized clinical trial to test this out [and] these results suggest we are headed in the right direction,” he added.

The study was published online March 4, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
 

A quarter of those with high-risk genotype changed medication behavior

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and ESRF caused by hypertension and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry. People of African ancestry also have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of high BP and the lowest rates of BP control, Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues wrote.

They studied a total of 2,050 patients of African ancestry with hypertension but without CKD who were randomized to undergo either immediate APOL1 testing (intervention group) or delayed APOL1 testing (control group).

“Patients randomly assigned to the intervention group received APOL1 genetic testing results from trained staff [while] their clinicians received results through clinical decision support in electronic health records,” the investigators explained.

Control patients received results after 12 months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 53 years and almost two-thirds were female. Mean baseline SBP was significantly higher in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 137 mm Hg, compared with those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 134 mm Hg (P = .003), and controls, at 133 mm Hg (P = .001), the authors reported. 

At 3 months, “all groups had some decrease in SBP,” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues observed.

However, patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes had a significantly greater decrease in SBP, at 6 mm Hg, compared with a mean decrease of 3 mm Hg for those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes (P = .004) as well as controls (P = .01). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in SBP or change in SBP from baseline to 12 months between the three groups.

“All three groups showed a significant increase in the rate of urine protein testing over time,” the authors added.

Again, however, the most significant increase in urine protein testing over time was seen in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, with a 12% increase from baseline, compared with a 6% increase for patients with low-risk APOL1 genotypes and a 7% increase among controls. The difference was significant only between patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes and controls (P = .01).

Significantly more patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 59%, reported making positive lifestyle changes as reflected in better dietary and exercise habits after receiving their test results than did those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 37% (P < .001).

Moreover, 24% of those with high-risk genotypes reported that receiving test results changed how they take their BP medication, compared with only 10% of those with low-risk genotypes.

More high-risk genotype carriers also reported taking their medications more often, at 10%, compared with 5% of low-risk genotype carriers (P = .005).

On the other hand, more patients with the high-risk genotype, at 27%, worried that they would develop kidney problems than low-risk carriers, at 17% (P < .001). Although investigators did offer patients the opportunity to speak with a genetic counselor at no cost, none chose to do so, the authors noted.
 

Small improvements

As the investigators emphasized, the magnitude of BP improvement seen in high-risk APOL1 carriers was small. However, they did not provide specific BP target recommendations or BP-lowering strategies, which, had they done so, may have brought BP down to a greater degree.

Health behavior changes were similarly small and may not have been clinically that meaningful.

Still, “results suggest that the trial clearly influenced those who received positive results and may have had some positive effects on other patients,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

Dr. Nadkarni is a cofounder of and has equity in Renalytx, and has been a member of the scientific advisory board and received personal fees from the company. He is also a cofounder of Pensieve Health.

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

Giving patients and their providers genetic test results for kidney failure risk promotes positive behavioral change that could decrease an individual’s likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal failure (ESRF), a new pilot study suggests.

“Disclosing APOL1 genetic testing results to patients of African ancestry with hypertension and their clinicians was associated with a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure [SBP], increased kidney disease screening, and positive self-reported behavior change in those with high-risk genotypes,” Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported.

“These two measurements – the change in blood pressure and increased kidney function tests – act as hallmarks for detecting beneficial lifestyle change,” Dr. Nadkarni noted in a statement from his institution.

“For many years, researchers have wondered whether reporting APOL1 genetic test results would help improve clinical management. This is the first pragmatic randomized clinical trial to test this out [and] these results suggest we are headed in the right direction,” he added.

The study was published online March 4, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
 

A quarter of those with high-risk genotype changed medication behavior

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and ESRF caused by hypertension and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry. People of African ancestry also have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of high BP and the lowest rates of BP control, Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues wrote.

They studied a total of 2,050 patients of African ancestry with hypertension but without CKD who were randomized to undergo either immediate APOL1 testing (intervention group) or delayed APOL1 testing (control group).

“Patients randomly assigned to the intervention group received APOL1 genetic testing results from trained staff [while] their clinicians received results through clinical decision support in electronic health records,” the investigators explained.

Control patients received results after 12 months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 53 years and almost two-thirds were female. Mean baseline SBP was significantly higher in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 137 mm Hg, compared with those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 134 mm Hg (P = .003), and controls, at 133 mm Hg (P = .001), the authors reported. 

At 3 months, “all groups had some decrease in SBP,” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues observed.

However, patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes had a significantly greater decrease in SBP, at 6 mm Hg, compared with a mean decrease of 3 mm Hg for those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes (P = .004) as well as controls (P = .01). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in SBP or change in SBP from baseline to 12 months between the three groups.

“All three groups showed a significant increase in the rate of urine protein testing over time,” the authors added.

Again, however, the most significant increase in urine protein testing over time was seen in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, with a 12% increase from baseline, compared with a 6% increase for patients with low-risk APOL1 genotypes and a 7% increase among controls. The difference was significant only between patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes and controls (P = .01).

Significantly more patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 59%, reported making positive lifestyle changes as reflected in better dietary and exercise habits after receiving their test results than did those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 37% (P < .001).

Moreover, 24% of those with high-risk genotypes reported that receiving test results changed how they take their BP medication, compared with only 10% of those with low-risk genotypes.

More high-risk genotype carriers also reported taking their medications more often, at 10%, compared with 5% of low-risk genotype carriers (P = .005).

On the other hand, more patients with the high-risk genotype, at 27%, worried that they would develop kidney problems than low-risk carriers, at 17% (P < .001). Although investigators did offer patients the opportunity to speak with a genetic counselor at no cost, none chose to do so, the authors noted.
 

Small improvements

As the investigators emphasized, the magnitude of BP improvement seen in high-risk APOL1 carriers was small. However, they did not provide specific BP target recommendations or BP-lowering strategies, which, had they done so, may have brought BP down to a greater degree.

Health behavior changes were similarly small and may not have been clinically that meaningful.

Still, “results suggest that the trial clearly influenced those who received positive results and may have had some positive effects on other patients,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

Dr. Nadkarni is a cofounder of and has equity in Renalytx, and has been a member of the scientific advisory board and received personal fees from the company. He is also a cofounder of Pensieve Health.

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

Giving patients and their providers genetic test results for kidney failure risk promotes positive behavioral change that could decrease an individual’s likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal failure (ESRF), a new pilot study suggests.

“Disclosing APOL1 genetic testing results to patients of African ancestry with hypertension and their clinicians was associated with a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure [SBP], increased kidney disease screening, and positive self-reported behavior change in those with high-risk genotypes,” Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH, Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported.

“These two measurements – the change in blood pressure and increased kidney function tests – act as hallmarks for detecting beneficial lifestyle change,” Dr. Nadkarni noted in a statement from his institution.

“For many years, researchers have wondered whether reporting APOL1 genetic test results would help improve clinical management. This is the first pragmatic randomized clinical trial to test this out [and] these results suggest we are headed in the right direction,” he added.

The study was published online March 4, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
 

A quarter of those with high-risk genotype changed medication behavior

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and ESRF caused by hypertension and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry. People of African ancestry also have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of high BP and the lowest rates of BP control, Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues wrote.

They studied a total of 2,050 patients of African ancestry with hypertension but without CKD who were randomized to undergo either immediate APOL1 testing (intervention group) or delayed APOL1 testing (control group).

“Patients randomly assigned to the intervention group received APOL1 genetic testing results from trained staff [while] their clinicians received results through clinical decision support in electronic health records,” the investigators explained.

Control patients received results after 12 months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 53 years and almost two-thirds were female. Mean baseline SBP was significantly higher in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 137 mm Hg, compared with those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 134 mm Hg (P = .003), and controls, at 133 mm Hg (P = .001), the authors reported. 

At 3 months, “all groups had some decrease in SBP,” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues observed.

However, patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes had a significantly greater decrease in SBP, at 6 mm Hg, compared with a mean decrease of 3 mm Hg for those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes (P = .004) as well as controls (P = .01). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in SBP or change in SBP from baseline to 12 months between the three groups.

“All three groups showed a significant increase in the rate of urine protein testing over time,” the authors added.

Again, however, the most significant increase in urine protein testing over time was seen in patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, with a 12% increase from baseline, compared with a 6% increase for patients with low-risk APOL1 genotypes and a 7% increase among controls. The difference was significant only between patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes and controls (P = .01).

Significantly more patients with high-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 59%, reported making positive lifestyle changes as reflected in better dietary and exercise habits after receiving their test results than did those with low-risk APOL1 genotypes, at 37% (P < .001).

Moreover, 24% of those with high-risk genotypes reported that receiving test results changed how they take their BP medication, compared with only 10% of those with low-risk genotypes.

More high-risk genotype carriers also reported taking their medications more often, at 10%, compared with 5% of low-risk genotype carriers (P = .005).

On the other hand, more patients with the high-risk genotype, at 27%, worried that they would develop kidney problems than low-risk carriers, at 17% (P < .001). Although investigators did offer patients the opportunity to speak with a genetic counselor at no cost, none chose to do so, the authors noted.
 

Small improvements

As the investigators emphasized, the magnitude of BP improvement seen in high-risk APOL1 carriers was small. However, they did not provide specific BP target recommendations or BP-lowering strategies, which, had they done so, may have brought BP down to a greater degree.

Health behavior changes were similarly small and may not have been clinically that meaningful.

Still, “results suggest that the trial clearly influenced those who received positive results and may have had some positive effects on other patients,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

Dr. Nadkarni is a cofounder of and has equity in Renalytx, and has been a member of the scientific advisory board and received personal fees from the company. He is also a cofounder of Pensieve Health.

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

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

David Bennett Sr, the 57-year-old patient with terminal heart disease who became the first person to receive a genetically modified pig heart, has died. He passed away March 8, according to a statement from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, where the transplant was performed.

Mr. Bennett received the transplant on January 7 and lived for 2 months following the surgery.   

Although not providing the exact cause of his death, UMMC said Mr. Bennett’s condition began deteriorating several days before his death.

When it became clear that he would not recover, he was given compassionate palliative care and was able to communicate with his family during his final hours.

“We are devastated by the loss of Mr. Bennett. He proved to be a brave and noble patient who fought all the way to the end. We extend our sincerest condolences to his family,” Bartley P. Griffith, MD, who performed the transplant, said in the statement.

“We are grateful to Mr. Bennett for his unique and historic role in helping to contribute to a vast array of knowledge to the field of xenotransplantation,” added Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MD, director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Before receiving the genetically modified pig heart, Mr. Bennett had required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive but was rejected for standard heart transplantation at UMMC and other centers. He was ineligible for an implanted ventricular assist device due to ventricular arrhythmias.

Following surgery, the transplanted pig heart performed well for several weeks without any signs of rejection. The patient was able to spend time with his family and participate in physical therapy to help regain strength.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” UMMC said in a statement issued 3 days after the surgery.

Thanks to Mr. Bennett, “we have gained invaluable insights learning that the genetically modified pig heart can function well within the human body while the immune system is adequately suppressed,” said Dr. Mohiuddin. “We remain optimistic and plan on continuing our work in future clinical trials.”

The patient’s son, David Bennett Jr, said the family is “profoundly grateful for the life-extending opportunity” provided to his father by the “stellar team” at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical Center.

“We were able to spend some precious weeks together while he recovered from the transplant surgery, weeks we would not have had without this miraculous effort,” he said.

“We also hope that what was learned from his surgery will benefit future patients and hopefully, one day, end the organ shortage that costs so many lives each year,” he added.

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

David Bennett Sr, the 57-year-old patient with terminal heart disease who became the first person to receive a genetically modified pig heart, has died. He passed away March 8, according to a statement from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, where the transplant was performed.

Mr. Bennett received the transplant on January 7 and lived for 2 months following the surgery.   

Although not providing the exact cause of his death, UMMC said Mr. Bennett’s condition began deteriorating several days before his death.

When it became clear that he would not recover, he was given compassionate palliative care and was able to communicate with his family during his final hours.

“We are devastated by the loss of Mr. Bennett. He proved to be a brave and noble patient who fought all the way to the end. We extend our sincerest condolences to his family,” Bartley P. Griffith, MD, who performed the transplant, said in the statement.

“We are grateful to Mr. Bennett for his unique and historic role in helping to contribute to a vast array of knowledge to the field of xenotransplantation,” added Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MD, director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Before receiving the genetically modified pig heart, Mr. Bennett had required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive but was rejected for standard heart transplantation at UMMC and other centers. He was ineligible for an implanted ventricular assist device due to ventricular arrhythmias.

Following surgery, the transplanted pig heart performed well for several weeks without any signs of rejection. The patient was able to spend time with his family and participate in physical therapy to help regain strength.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” UMMC said in a statement issued 3 days after the surgery.

Thanks to Mr. Bennett, “we have gained invaluable insights learning that the genetically modified pig heart can function well within the human body while the immune system is adequately suppressed,” said Dr. Mohiuddin. “We remain optimistic and plan on continuing our work in future clinical trials.”

The patient’s son, David Bennett Jr, said the family is “profoundly grateful for the life-extending opportunity” provided to his father by the “stellar team” at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical Center.

“We were able to spend some precious weeks together while he recovered from the transplant surgery, weeks we would not have had without this miraculous effort,” he said.

“We also hope that what was learned from his surgery will benefit future patients and hopefully, one day, end the organ shortage that costs so many lives each year,” he added.

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

David Bennett Sr, the 57-year-old patient with terminal heart disease who became the first person to receive a genetically modified pig heart, has died. He passed away March 8, according to a statement from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, where the transplant was performed.

Mr. Bennett received the transplant on January 7 and lived for 2 months following the surgery.   

Although not providing the exact cause of his death, UMMC said Mr. Bennett’s condition began deteriorating several days before his death.

When it became clear that he would not recover, he was given compassionate palliative care and was able to communicate with his family during his final hours.

“We are devastated by the loss of Mr. Bennett. He proved to be a brave and noble patient who fought all the way to the end. We extend our sincerest condolences to his family,” Bartley P. Griffith, MD, who performed the transplant, said in the statement.

“We are grateful to Mr. Bennett for his unique and historic role in helping to contribute to a vast array of knowledge to the field of xenotransplantation,” added Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MD, director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Before receiving the genetically modified pig heart, Mr. Bennett had required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive but was rejected for standard heart transplantation at UMMC and other centers. He was ineligible for an implanted ventricular assist device due to ventricular arrhythmias.

Following surgery, the transplanted pig heart performed well for several weeks without any signs of rejection. The patient was able to spend time with his family and participate in physical therapy to help regain strength.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” UMMC said in a statement issued 3 days after the surgery.

Thanks to Mr. Bennett, “we have gained invaluable insights learning that the genetically modified pig heart can function well within the human body while the immune system is adequately suppressed,” said Dr. Mohiuddin. “We remain optimistic and plan on continuing our work in future clinical trials.”

The patient’s son, David Bennett Jr, said the family is “profoundly grateful for the life-extending opportunity” provided to his father by the “stellar team” at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical Center.

“We were able to spend some precious weeks together while he recovered from the transplant surgery, weeks we would not have had without this miraculous effort,” he said.

“We also hope that what was learned from his surgery will benefit future patients and hopefully, one day, end the organ shortage that costs so many lives each year,” he added.

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