User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
ESC suspension of Russia, Belarus societies sparks controversy
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Home blood pressure testing better than at clinics: Study
Everyone’s been there. Which one’s right?
The answer: Perhaps neither. Individual measures of blood pressure are not as accurate as taking multiple readings over a day and averaging them.
Blood pressure varies throughout the day – by about 30 points for systolic pressure, or the pressure when the heart beats – and one or two measurements in a doctor’s office may not accurately reflect the average figure, said Beverly B. Green, MD, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
Average blood pressure reading is the only measurement on which a doctor can accurately diagnose and treat high blood pressure, she said. A new study by Dr. Green and other researchers at Kaiser Permanente showed that giving patients the chance to monitor their blood pressure at home could help get more reliable measurements.
Nearly one in four adults in the United States with high blood pressure are unaware they have the condition and are not getting treatment to control it. Without treatment, the condition can cause heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and other potentially life-threatening health problems.
Current guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure recommend that patients whose pressure is high in the clinic get tested again to confirm the results. While the guidelines recommend home monitoring before diagnosing high blood pressure, research shows that doctors continue to measure blood pressure in their clinics for the second reading.
In their study, Dr. Green and colleagues found that home readings were more accurate than measurements taken in clinics or at pharmacy kiosks.
“Home blood pressure monitoring was a better option, because it was more accurate” than clinic blood pressure readings, Green said. A companion study found that patients preferred taking their blood pressure at home.
For their study, Dr. Green’s group used Kaiser’s electronic health record system to identify people at high risk for high blood pressure based on a recent clinic visit. They then randomly assigned the participants to get their follow-up blood pressure readings in the clinic, at home, or at kiosks in clinics or pharmacies.
Each participant also received a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM). These devices, which people must wear continuously for 24 hours, have cuffs that inflate every 20-0 minutes during the day and every 30-60 minutes at night. Although ABPMs are the preferred test for accurately diagnosing high blood pressure, they aren’t available for widespread use.
The Kaiser researchers found that people’s systolic BP readings at clinics were generally lower than their ABPM measurements, leading to undiagnosed high BP in more than 50% of cases. Kiosk readings were much higher than the ABPM measurements and tended to overdiagnose high BP.
The value of home monitoring
Branden Villavaso, a 48-year-old attorney in New Orleans who was diagnosed with high BP at age 32, attributes his condition to genetics. He says an at-home monitor plus the occasional use of an ABPM finally provided his doctor with an accurate assessment of his condition.
Thanks to this aggressive approach, over the past 3 years, Mr. Villavaso’s diastolic reading has dropped from a previous range of between 90 and 100 to a healthier but not quite ideal value of about 80. Meanwhile, his systolic pressure has dropped to about 120, well below the goal of 130.
Mr. Villavaso said his doctor has relied on the averages of the BP readings to tailor his medication, and he also credited his wife, Chloe, a clinical nurse specialist, for monitoring his progress.
While previous studies have found similar benefits for measuring BP at home, Dr. Green said the latest study may offer the most powerful evidence to date because of the large number of people who took part, the involvement of primary care clinics, and the use of real-world health care professionals to take measurements instead of people who usually do health research. She said this study is the first to compare kiosk and ABPM results.
“The study indicates that assisting patients with getting access to valid blood pressure readings so they can measure their blood pressure at home will give a better picture of the true burden of [high BP],” said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, a cardiologist at Tulane University, New Orleans.
He recommended patients select a home monitoring device from www.validatebp.org, a noncommercial website that lists home BP systems that have proven to be accurate.
“We know that [high blood pressure] is the most common and powerful cause of heart disease and death,” Dr. Ferdinand said. “Patients are pleased to participate in shared decision-making and actively assist in the control of a potentially deadly disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Everyone’s been there. Which one’s right?
The answer: Perhaps neither. Individual measures of blood pressure are not as accurate as taking multiple readings over a day and averaging them.
Blood pressure varies throughout the day – by about 30 points for systolic pressure, or the pressure when the heart beats – and one or two measurements in a doctor’s office may not accurately reflect the average figure, said Beverly B. Green, MD, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
Average blood pressure reading is the only measurement on which a doctor can accurately diagnose and treat high blood pressure, she said. A new study by Dr. Green and other researchers at Kaiser Permanente showed that giving patients the chance to monitor their blood pressure at home could help get more reliable measurements.
Nearly one in four adults in the United States with high blood pressure are unaware they have the condition and are not getting treatment to control it. Without treatment, the condition can cause heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and other potentially life-threatening health problems.
Current guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure recommend that patients whose pressure is high in the clinic get tested again to confirm the results. While the guidelines recommend home monitoring before diagnosing high blood pressure, research shows that doctors continue to measure blood pressure in their clinics for the second reading.
In their study, Dr. Green and colleagues found that home readings were more accurate than measurements taken in clinics or at pharmacy kiosks.
“Home blood pressure monitoring was a better option, because it was more accurate” than clinic blood pressure readings, Green said. A companion study found that patients preferred taking their blood pressure at home.
For their study, Dr. Green’s group used Kaiser’s electronic health record system to identify people at high risk for high blood pressure based on a recent clinic visit. They then randomly assigned the participants to get their follow-up blood pressure readings in the clinic, at home, or at kiosks in clinics or pharmacies.
Each participant also received a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM). These devices, which people must wear continuously for 24 hours, have cuffs that inflate every 20-0 minutes during the day and every 30-60 minutes at night. Although ABPMs are the preferred test for accurately diagnosing high blood pressure, they aren’t available for widespread use.
The Kaiser researchers found that people’s systolic BP readings at clinics were generally lower than their ABPM measurements, leading to undiagnosed high BP in more than 50% of cases. Kiosk readings were much higher than the ABPM measurements and tended to overdiagnose high BP.
The value of home monitoring
Branden Villavaso, a 48-year-old attorney in New Orleans who was diagnosed with high BP at age 32, attributes his condition to genetics. He says an at-home monitor plus the occasional use of an ABPM finally provided his doctor with an accurate assessment of his condition.
Thanks to this aggressive approach, over the past 3 years, Mr. Villavaso’s diastolic reading has dropped from a previous range of between 90 and 100 to a healthier but not quite ideal value of about 80. Meanwhile, his systolic pressure has dropped to about 120, well below the goal of 130.
Mr. Villavaso said his doctor has relied on the averages of the BP readings to tailor his medication, and he also credited his wife, Chloe, a clinical nurse specialist, for monitoring his progress.
While previous studies have found similar benefits for measuring BP at home, Dr. Green said the latest study may offer the most powerful evidence to date because of the large number of people who took part, the involvement of primary care clinics, and the use of real-world health care professionals to take measurements instead of people who usually do health research. She said this study is the first to compare kiosk and ABPM results.
“The study indicates that assisting patients with getting access to valid blood pressure readings so they can measure their blood pressure at home will give a better picture of the true burden of [high BP],” said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, a cardiologist at Tulane University, New Orleans.
He recommended patients select a home monitoring device from www.validatebp.org, a noncommercial website that lists home BP systems that have proven to be accurate.
“We know that [high blood pressure] is the most common and powerful cause of heart disease and death,” Dr. Ferdinand said. “Patients are pleased to participate in shared decision-making and actively assist in the control of a potentially deadly disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Everyone’s been there. Which one’s right?
The answer: Perhaps neither. Individual measures of blood pressure are not as accurate as taking multiple readings over a day and averaging them.
Blood pressure varies throughout the day – by about 30 points for systolic pressure, or the pressure when the heart beats – and one or two measurements in a doctor’s office may not accurately reflect the average figure, said Beverly B. Green, MD, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
Average blood pressure reading is the only measurement on which a doctor can accurately diagnose and treat high blood pressure, she said. A new study by Dr. Green and other researchers at Kaiser Permanente showed that giving patients the chance to monitor their blood pressure at home could help get more reliable measurements.
Nearly one in four adults in the United States with high blood pressure are unaware they have the condition and are not getting treatment to control it. Without treatment, the condition can cause heart attacks, strokes, kidney damage, and other potentially life-threatening health problems.
Current guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure recommend that patients whose pressure is high in the clinic get tested again to confirm the results. While the guidelines recommend home monitoring before diagnosing high blood pressure, research shows that doctors continue to measure blood pressure in their clinics for the second reading.
In their study, Dr. Green and colleagues found that home readings were more accurate than measurements taken in clinics or at pharmacy kiosks.
“Home blood pressure monitoring was a better option, because it was more accurate” than clinic blood pressure readings, Green said. A companion study found that patients preferred taking their blood pressure at home.
For their study, Dr. Green’s group used Kaiser’s electronic health record system to identify people at high risk for high blood pressure based on a recent clinic visit. They then randomly assigned the participants to get their follow-up blood pressure readings in the clinic, at home, or at kiosks in clinics or pharmacies.
Each participant also received a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM). These devices, which people must wear continuously for 24 hours, have cuffs that inflate every 20-0 minutes during the day and every 30-60 minutes at night. Although ABPMs are the preferred test for accurately diagnosing high blood pressure, they aren’t available for widespread use.
The Kaiser researchers found that people’s systolic BP readings at clinics were generally lower than their ABPM measurements, leading to undiagnosed high BP in more than 50% of cases. Kiosk readings were much higher than the ABPM measurements and tended to overdiagnose high BP.
The value of home monitoring
Branden Villavaso, a 48-year-old attorney in New Orleans who was diagnosed with high BP at age 32, attributes his condition to genetics. He says an at-home monitor plus the occasional use of an ABPM finally provided his doctor with an accurate assessment of his condition.
Thanks to this aggressive approach, over the past 3 years, Mr. Villavaso’s diastolic reading has dropped from a previous range of between 90 and 100 to a healthier but not quite ideal value of about 80. Meanwhile, his systolic pressure has dropped to about 120, well below the goal of 130.
Mr. Villavaso said his doctor has relied on the averages of the BP readings to tailor his medication, and he also credited his wife, Chloe, a clinical nurse specialist, for monitoring his progress.
While previous studies have found similar benefits for measuring BP at home, Dr. Green said the latest study may offer the most powerful evidence to date because of the large number of people who took part, the involvement of primary care clinics, and the use of real-world health care professionals to take measurements instead of people who usually do health research. She said this study is the first to compare kiosk and ABPM results.
“The study indicates that assisting patients with getting access to valid blood pressure readings so they can measure their blood pressure at home will give a better picture of the true burden of [high BP],” said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, a cardiologist at Tulane University, New Orleans.
He recommended patients select a home monitoring device from www.validatebp.org, a noncommercial website that lists home BP systems that have proven to be accurate.
“We know that [high blood pressure] is the most common and powerful cause of heart disease and death,” Dr. Ferdinand said. “Patients are pleased to participate in shared decision-making and actively assist in the control of a potentially deadly disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
DISCHARGE: CTA shows safety edge versus cath in intermediate-risk stable chest pain
Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.
But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.
None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.
The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”
Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.
“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.
Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”
The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”
It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.
DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.
“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.
The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.
Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.
Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).
With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.
The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.
As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.
Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).
Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).
But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.
The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.
“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.
That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”
Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”
DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.
But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.
None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.
The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”
Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.
“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.
Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”
The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”
It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.
DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.
“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.
The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.
Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.
Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).
With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.
The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.
As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.
Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).
Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).
But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.
The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.
“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.
That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”
Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”
DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.
But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.
None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.
The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”
Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.
“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.
Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”
The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”
It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.
DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.
“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.
The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.
Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.
Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).
With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.
The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.
As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.
Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).
Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).
But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.
The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.
“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.
That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”
Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”
DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians beware: Feds start tracking information-blocking claims
The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such,
Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.
The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.
Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.
The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
Do the stats tell the story?
The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.
Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.
“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
A long time coming
The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.
The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.
Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.
“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
With education, more is better
These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.
“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”
Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.
“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.
For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.
The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.
“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such,
Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.
The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.
Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.
The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
Do the stats tell the story?
The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.
Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.
“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
A long time coming
The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.
The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.
Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.
“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
With education, more is better
These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.
“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”
Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.
“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.
For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.
The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.
“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such,
Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.
The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.
Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.
The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
Do the stats tell the story?
The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.
Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.
“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
A long time coming
The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.
The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.
Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.
“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
With education, more is better
These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.
“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”
Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.
“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.
For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.
The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.
“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Gut microbiome species predict type 2 diabetes
according to results from a 15-year follow-up study of more than 5,000 people in Finland.
“We are not aware of previous long-term prospective studies of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the gut microbiome similar to the current study,” stated the authors of the study, published online Jan. 31, 2022, in Diabetes Care.
Though requiring further validation, the results “build on and extend previous mainly cross-sectional evidence and further support links between dietary habits, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes that are modulated by the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.
The findings are from a prospective study of data on fecal samples from 5,572 people in Finland in 2002 in the FINRISK 2002 population cohort. In 2017, the samples were sent for sequencing as follow-up.
Of note, the study excluded people with prevalent diabetes at baseline, including those being treated with antidiabetic drugs such as metformin.
Four species, two clusters associated with type 2 diabetes development
Over a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 432 (7.8%) participants went on to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and the presence of four species and two clusters at baseline were significantly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes.
The four species include Clostridium citroniae (hazard ratio, 1.21; unadjusted P = .02), C. bolteae (HR, 1.20; unadjusted P = .01), Tyzzerella nexilis (HR, 1.17; unadjusted P = .03), and Ruminococcus gnavus (HR, 1.17; P = .04).
And the two positively associated clusters mostly consisted of the same species (both HR, 1.18).
Importantly, the associations were nearly the same among participants in eastern and western Finland, which are known for having unique genetic as well as lifestyle differences that impact morbidity and mortality.
“Three of these taxa could be clustered together by proportional abundance in both geographic areas, and combined abundance of the four taxa was also predictive of incident type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.
They noted that the identified species have been previously associated with type 2 diabetes and appear to be linked in some ways to the quality of diet and with other metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver disease.
C. citroniae, for instance, has been associated with trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a compound likely linked to the intake of red meat, and the authors noted that a direct association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes risk has been known for more than 15 years.
TMAO has also been associated with adipose tissue inflammation and impeded hepatic insulin signaling, which are all involved in increased insulin resistance, high blood glucose levels, and type 2 diabetes, the authors explained.
R. gnavus has been previously associated with obesity in humans and animals. And the bacterial species is also “potentially related to glucose metabolism regulation and linked to increases in inflammatory cytokines, both of which are related to type 2 diabetes pathophysiology,” the authors reported.
Stepping stone toward improved prediction
Coauthor Teemu J. Niiranen, MD, PhD, of the division of medicine, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, noted that, while prior studies have linked type 2 diabetes with distinctive characteristics of gut microbiome composition, most studies have not included prospective data, and long-term studies have been lacking.
Furthermore, many of the studies could have been confounded by the use of antidiabetic drugs that could influence gut microbiome composition, including metformin, which was excluded in the current study.
“We avoid several of the biases related to cross-sectional studies, such as the confounding effects of diabetes medications,” Dr. Niiranen said in an interview.
“We also know the temporal sequence of the exposure and the outcome, and that the changes in the gut microbiome preceded the development of diabetes,” he said. “All in all, a cohort study like this provides a much greater level of evidence than cross-sectional studies.”
Dr. Niiranen noted, however, that “although we demonstrate that certain gut microbiome changes are associated with greater risk of future diabetes, we are still quite far from clinical use.”
In addition to needing to replicate the results in other ethnic groups and locations, “we would need to find optimal clinical cutoffs for clinical decision-making and demonstrate the amount increase in predictive ability, compared with conventional diabetes risk factors,” he said.
The study nevertheless “serves as a stepping stone toward the goal of improved prediction and the development of effective treatments for type 2 diabetes through modification of the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.
Other research has shed light on gut bacteria that appear to be linked to the prevention rather than the development of diabetes, identifying species that help produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that may in fact provide protection against type 2 diabetes.
And additional research does suggest potential clinical implications. Efforts to improve insulin sensitivity via the gut through fecal microbial transplantation are also making headway, with an oral capsule formulation showing benefit among patients with severe obesity.
The research was funded in part by grants from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Academy of Finland.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results from a 15-year follow-up study of more than 5,000 people in Finland.
“We are not aware of previous long-term prospective studies of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the gut microbiome similar to the current study,” stated the authors of the study, published online Jan. 31, 2022, in Diabetes Care.
Though requiring further validation, the results “build on and extend previous mainly cross-sectional evidence and further support links between dietary habits, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes that are modulated by the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.
The findings are from a prospective study of data on fecal samples from 5,572 people in Finland in 2002 in the FINRISK 2002 population cohort. In 2017, the samples were sent for sequencing as follow-up.
Of note, the study excluded people with prevalent diabetes at baseline, including those being treated with antidiabetic drugs such as metformin.
Four species, two clusters associated with type 2 diabetes development
Over a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 432 (7.8%) participants went on to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and the presence of four species and two clusters at baseline were significantly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes.
The four species include Clostridium citroniae (hazard ratio, 1.21; unadjusted P = .02), C. bolteae (HR, 1.20; unadjusted P = .01), Tyzzerella nexilis (HR, 1.17; unadjusted P = .03), and Ruminococcus gnavus (HR, 1.17; P = .04).
And the two positively associated clusters mostly consisted of the same species (both HR, 1.18).
Importantly, the associations were nearly the same among participants in eastern and western Finland, which are known for having unique genetic as well as lifestyle differences that impact morbidity and mortality.
“Three of these taxa could be clustered together by proportional abundance in both geographic areas, and combined abundance of the four taxa was also predictive of incident type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.
They noted that the identified species have been previously associated with type 2 diabetes and appear to be linked in some ways to the quality of diet and with other metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver disease.
C. citroniae, for instance, has been associated with trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a compound likely linked to the intake of red meat, and the authors noted that a direct association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes risk has been known for more than 15 years.
TMAO has also been associated with adipose tissue inflammation and impeded hepatic insulin signaling, which are all involved in increased insulin resistance, high blood glucose levels, and type 2 diabetes, the authors explained.
R. gnavus has been previously associated with obesity in humans and animals. And the bacterial species is also “potentially related to glucose metabolism regulation and linked to increases in inflammatory cytokines, both of which are related to type 2 diabetes pathophysiology,” the authors reported.
Stepping stone toward improved prediction
Coauthor Teemu J. Niiranen, MD, PhD, of the division of medicine, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, noted that, while prior studies have linked type 2 diabetes with distinctive characteristics of gut microbiome composition, most studies have not included prospective data, and long-term studies have been lacking.
Furthermore, many of the studies could have been confounded by the use of antidiabetic drugs that could influence gut microbiome composition, including metformin, which was excluded in the current study.
“We avoid several of the biases related to cross-sectional studies, such as the confounding effects of diabetes medications,” Dr. Niiranen said in an interview.
“We also know the temporal sequence of the exposure and the outcome, and that the changes in the gut microbiome preceded the development of diabetes,” he said. “All in all, a cohort study like this provides a much greater level of evidence than cross-sectional studies.”
Dr. Niiranen noted, however, that “although we demonstrate that certain gut microbiome changes are associated with greater risk of future diabetes, we are still quite far from clinical use.”
In addition to needing to replicate the results in other ethnic groups and locations, “we would need to find optimal clinical cutoffs for clinical decision-making and demonstrate the amount increase in predictive ability, compared with conventional diabetes risk factors,” he said.
The study nevertheless “serves as a stepping stone toward the goal of improved prediction and the development of effective treatments for type 2 diabetes through modification of the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.
Other research has shed light on gut bacteria that appear to be linked to the prevention rather than the development of diabetes, identifying species that help produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that may in fact provide protection against type 2 diabetes.
And additional research does suggest potential clinical implications. Efforts to improve insulin sensitivity via the gut through fecal microbial transplantation are also making headway, with an oral capsule formulation showing benefit among patients with severe obesity.
The research was funded in part by grants from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Academy of Finland.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results from a 15-year follow-up study of more than 5,000 people in Finland.
“We are not aware of previous long-term prospective studies of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the gut microbiome similar to the current study,” stated the authors of the study, published online Jan. 31, 2022, in Diabetes Care.
Though requiring further validation, the results “build on and extend previous mainly cross-sectional evidence and further support links between dietary habits, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes that are modulated by the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.
The findings are from a prospective study of data on fecal samples from 5,572 people in Finland in 2002 in the FINRISK 2002 population cohort. In 2017, the samples were sent for sequencing as follow-up.
Of note, the study excluded people with prevalent diabetes at baseline, including those being treated with antidiabetic drugs such as metformin.
Four species, two clusters associated with type 2 diabetes development
Over a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 432 (7.8%) participants went on to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and the presence of four species and two clusters at baseline were significantly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes.
The four species include Clostridium citroniae (hazard ratio, 1.21; unadjusted P = .02), C. bolteae (HR, 1.20; unadjusted P = .01), Tyzzerella nexilis (HR, 1.17; unadjusted P = .03), and Ruminococcus gnavus (HR, 1.17; P = .04).
And the two positively associated clusters mostly consisted of the same species (both HR, 1.18).
Importantly, the associations were nearly the same among participants in eastern and western Finland, which are known for having unique genetic as well as lifestyle differences that impact morbidity and mortality.
“Three of these taxa could be clustered together by proportional abundance in both geographic areas, and combined abundance of the four taxa was also predictive of incident type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.
They noted that the identified species have been previously associated with type 2 diabetes and appear to be linked in some ways to the quality of diet and with other metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver disease.
C. citroniae, for instance, has been associated with trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a compound likely linked to the intake of red meat, and the authors noted that a direct association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes risk has been known for more than 15 years.
TMAO has also been associated with adipose tissue inflammation and impeded hepatic insulin signaling, which are all involved in increased insulin resistance, high blood glucose levels, and type 2 diabetes, the authors explained.
R. gnavus has been previously associated with obesity in humans and animals. And the bacterial species is also “potentially related to glucose metabolism regulation and linked to increases in inflammatory cytokines, both of which are related to type 2 diabetes pathophysiology,” the authors reported.
Stepping stone toward improved prediction
Coauthor Teemu J. Niiranen, MD, PhD, of the division of medicine, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, noted that, while prior studies have linked type 2 diabetes with distinctive characteristics of gut microbiome composition, most studies have not included prospective data, and long-term studies have been lacking.
Furthermore, many of the studies could have been confounded by the use of antidiabetic drugs that could influence gut microbiome composition, including metformin, which was excluded in the current study.
“We avoid several of the biases related to cross-sectional studies, such as the confounding effects of diabetes medications,” Dr. Niiranen said in an interview.
“We also know the temporal sequence of the exposure and the outcome, and that the changes in the gut microbiome preceded the development of diabetes,” he said. “All in all, a cohort study like this provides a much greater level of evidence than cross-sectional studies.”
Dr. Niiranen noted, however, that “although we demonstrate that certain gut microbiome changes are associated with greater risk of future diabetes, we are still quite far from clinical use.”
In addition to needing to replicate the results in other ethnic groups and locations, “we would need to find optimal clinical cutoffs for clinical decision-making and demonstrate the amount increase in predictive ability, compared with conventional diabetes risk factors,” he said.
The study nevertheless “serves as a stepping stone toward the goal of improved prediction and the development of effective treatments for type 2 diabetes through modification of the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.
Other research has shed light on gut bacteria that appear to be linked to the prevention rather than the development of diabetes, identifying species that help produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that may in fact provide protection against type 2 diabetes.
And additional research does suggest potential clinical implications. Efforts to improve insulin sensitivity via the gut through fecal microbial transplantation are also making headway, with an oral capsule formulation showing benefit among patients with severe obesity.
The research was funded in part by grants from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Academy of Finland.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES CARE
Side effects of COVID mRNA vaccines are mild and short, large study confirms
Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.
Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.
Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.
From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.
Among other findings:
- Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
- One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
- Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
- When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
- Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
- Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
- Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.
The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.
“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
‘Robust and reassuring data’
“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”
The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.
Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.
Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.
From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.
Among other findings:
- Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
- One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
- Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
- When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
- Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
- Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
- Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.
The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.
“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
‘Robust and reassuring data’
“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”
The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.
Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.
Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.
From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.
Among other findings:
- Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
- One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
- Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
- When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
- Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
- Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
- Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.
The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.
“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
‘Robust and reassuring data’
“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”
The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin reduces deep vein thrombosis
Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.
Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
Indicative results
Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).
The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.
“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.
The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.
Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
In and out of the ICU
Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.
Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”
Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.
Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.
Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
Indicative results
Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).
The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.
“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.
The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.
Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
In and out of the ICU
Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.
Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”
Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.
Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.
Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
Indicative results
Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).
The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.
“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.
The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.
Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
In and out of the ICU
Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.
Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”
Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.
FROM CHEST
Antivaccine physician pleads guilty to role in Capitol riot
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Former physician sentenced to 20 years in pill mill case
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Silver lining emerges for embolic protection in post-TAVR stroke
Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.
Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.
The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.
“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.
In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.
Potential effectiveness of filters
The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”
In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.
Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.
Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”
David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.
The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”
The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”
Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.
Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.
Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.
The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.
“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.
In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.
Potential effectiveness of filters
The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”
In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.
Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.
Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”
David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.
The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”
The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”
Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.
Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.
Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.
The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.
“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.
In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.
Potential effectiveness of filters
The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”
In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.
Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.
Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”
David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.
The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”
The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”
Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.
FROM JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTION